Electronics isn't magic, it runs on logic and logic can be verified.
no response to the brake, it's not surprising that the black box -- presumably using the exact same input controlling the engine -- would claim that the accelerator was fully pressed and the brake was untouched.
I don't see how that is not surprising, I would be flabbergasted to find out that the brake and throttle were controlled on the same I/O port - that's just idiotic. When you have a system that can handle hundreds of I/O ports (trust me, a $4 hobby chip can handle 100 I/O easily, industrial stuff routinely handles thousands of I/O points), why the hell would you put the accelerate and the break on the same one? Not only would it be harder than putting each on its own I/O point, it makes absolutely no sense.
Unless Toyota's engineers are complete idiots and did some bizarre engineering, it's extremely easy to verify that a cross signal is not possible in the hardware, and it should be pretty simple to make sure there isn't a possible condition in your logic that would cause the brake to somehow accelerate.
That's why Toyota has vehemently claimed the cause is not in the ECU, but elsewhere in the design - because verifying the ECU is easy. Coming up with every scenario where the gas pedal could stick or a person could hit both gas and brake at the same time and designing around it is not so easy.
Oh, I'm not surprised. I just don't buy their line directly like you're doing.
Toyota has always taken the position that it must be a design error, they just claimed it was never in the firmware. Toyota never once claimed it was caused by driver error.
It's the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that is suggesting that the sudden acceleration was driver error. And even then, Toyota is cautioning that these data loggers were there to verify that their systems were operating correctly - they were never meant to determine what happened in a crash.
In other words, the US government is vindicating Toyota, and Toyota is saying "Hold on, not too fast, it's still possible we've screwed up, and we should have had systems in place to prevent it anyway."
It's essentially the opposite of what you're saying.
Reading comprehension fail. First, delete the first sentence, because it is uttered by a lawyer. You cannot trust as lawyer to quote his opponent accurately.
This really boils my blood. Not that it's about lawyers, I don't give a shit about them, but the idea that because a statement from a particular person or group of people or a member of a certain profession it should automatically be discarded without regard to whether or not it is accurate. That is the ultimate in stupidity, and for me completely invalidates the rest of your statement (turn about is fair play). It's not even that I don't believe what you say, I'm sure you're probably at least close to right, I just don't care to read the words of an idiot.
If you don't trust a source, then verify the statement. If it doesn't matter that much to you, do a quick google search. If it comes up right away that a Toyota exec said exactly what the dirty nasty lawyer said the Toyota exec, well I guess you can trust lawyers more than you thought eh? If it turns out the dirty nasty lawyer is lying or misstating the Toyota exec, call him out on it. If you can't verify one way or the other, then just treat the statement with skepticism.
However your signature indicates that you want to win a Darwin award yourself.
How can this be, a post which is so internally self contradictory?
I'm not sure I understand this statement, could you clarify? What in his signature makes him a candidate for a Darwin award? If you're saying that making his disgust of a documented child rapist known is stupid enough that he should be removed from the gene pool, then I can't help but wonder what world you live in.
Also, assuming my previous analysis of you is correct, if I ever have kids and you come near them, I'll blow your fucking head off.
Some changes that were heralded as progressive turned out not be improvements and were regressed. So does it really have to be a positive change for the person to have been progressive?
All definitions are made on an individual basis. Obviously if an "improvement" was regressed, people did not believe it was an improvement, so your point does not stand.
Progressive is moving forward, but the destination doesn't matter.
To make a car analogy, you've got five people in a car Cincinnati:
One guy wants to go to New York, another guy wants to go to Florida. These two are both progressives, but they have very different destinations.
A third passenger wants to go back to California, it was so nice there he wants to stay. A fourth wants to head back to Seattle, the rain is soothing and besides, anything is better than Cincinnati.
These two are both regressives, but again they want to go back to very different places.
Then there is the last passenger - he really likes the Bengals and doesn't really want to leave Cincinnati at all. He's a conservative.
Right now the two progressives are fighting over the driver's seat and have basically settled on taking turns driving, each trying to get to their destination as fast as possible while they are at the wheel. The regressives and the conservative haven't had a chance to drive in a long, long time.
do you realize (and would you agree) that this would make GW Bush a very, very progressive president when you consider the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act?
Well, since G.W. Bush was an extremely progressive Republican, it makes sense doesn't it?
Bush was not a conservative, he was a liberal Republican. There is a huge difference between the two (there is nothing stopping anyone from being a conservative Democrat either - there are actually quite a few). Republicans tend to be more conservative and Democrats tend to be more liberal, but the two are not mutually exclusive by any means. The only difference between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican is the agenda they are pushing forward.
By definition anybody who seeks major change cannot be a conservative, unless the changes are only to undo previous changes.
Re:The trackpad called, it wants its invention bac
on
The Mouse Vanishes
·
· Score: 1
I don't know if you noticed, but the track pad requires you to physically touch a device, and has a very limited interaction surface.
Think of this as a trackpad the size of your desk, which is pretty freakin cool for use mobile folks.
Ah, I see, so humanity must have suffered constant foot pain before the last few centuries of shoe design.
There is actually some good evidence emerging that suggests shoes do a lot of harm to our posture and weaken the feet in general. Barefoot running, for example, is booming because once you develop the muscles that have been left unused for so long, injury rates plummet compared to standard running shoes.
The jarring heel-toe motion that cushy shoes promote is downright bad for your body.
Drivers are almost exclusively for controlling hardware. That's what "driver" means - it's short for device driver. You need drivers for the IR camera, but a standard software app is what you need for mouse simulation.
Software drivers (i.e. drivers that don't interface to hardware) do exist, but they are usually a bad idea.
You know it doesn't work when you dunk them in water man.
Seriously.
Re:I like holding the mouse over fake holding one!
on
The Mouse Vanishes
·
· Score: 1
I like not having to carry a bulky mouse in my laptop bag over having to carry one (the IR setup is much much smaller).
Re:I like holding the mouse over fake holding one!
on
The Mouse Vanishes
·
· Score: 1
Obviously you aren't going to use this for a desktop PC.
This, however, would be awesome for a laptop, especially if you like to have your laptop on a stand for a more ergonomic experience. Now all you need is a laser keyboard and you're set.
Why the hell do you think artists tour 350 days out of the year? If they were making the $10 million per multi-platinum album that the record company is, they wouldn't need to do all that touring.
And it's only the successful bands that can book a tour that long at a profit - you know, the ones who can sell concert seats for $50 each and pack out several thousand seat houses? They get a much bigger cut of that money, and they have fewer loans to pay on it.
Put it to you another way, if you're making $5000 a night, how many nights do you have to work to cover your $2 million debt to the record label? I'll give you a hint: It can't be done in a single year, even if you played every single night. At 10% of the proceeds for a rock concert, you have to pack 1000 seats at $50 to make $5,000 a night.
The guys you see on cribs fall into one of two catagories: they either live off their advances and don't actually have anything in their bank account, in which case as soon as they loose popularity they are bankrupt and have to go work at McDonald's; or they are able to pack 5,000+ seat houses at $50+ a seat, and are then able to pay off their record label debt in only 80 shows, and are thus able to make a couple million dollars by working 150 shows a year (three nights a week).
The article mentions that 30 Seconds to Mars sold 2 million copies of their album and didn't make a single dime off of it. All their money came from the tour. The original Courtney Love article that the article references says the exact same thing.
If an artist could make money on album sales, they wouldn't need to tour nearly as much.
Regardless of whether or not the guy wins some money in the lawsuit
If the claim is legitimate (and it appears to be on the surface) the guy wins 84% of any sale of facebook, and potentially 84% of Zuckerberg's fortune (since it's all on paper) - that 4 billion will suddenly become 650 million - quite a drop!
Not only that, but Zuckerberg will no longer have a controlling interest in the company. In business, the minor shareholder gets zero say in the business. It will effectively become Ceglia's Facebook, not Zuckerberg's.
Unfortunately, Ceglia sounds like just as big a douche as Zuckerberg, so likely little will change on the face of Facebook.
An odd detail is that 84% number is said to be as of 2004. Why 2004?
Because the website was finished in Feb 2004 - the increasing stake in the business was based on the status of the website after Jan 1 2004. For every day after Jan 1, Ceglia got an increased 1% stake in the business until the website was finished. It was finished 34 days later, that's an extra 34% stake in the company.
Thus, 84% instead of 50%, and it stopped growing Feb 4, 2004.
For a contract to be valid it needs only two things: compensation, and to not violate any state or federal laws. On compensation, contract law follows what is known as the "Peppercorn Doctrine".
That is, a peppercorn is good enough to count as compensation, so long as both parties agree to it. I.e. I could set up contract for you to paint my house for a peppercorn, and if you agree to it that contract is enforceable by law. You have to finish my house, and I have to pay you a peppercorn for it.
For the second, I've never heard of any laws restricting exactly how one sells stake in their business. On the surface the contract seems perfectly legitimate, and just because it was two students who drew it up and signed it doesn't make it any less enforceable.
It allows you to sign the drivers yourself without having to turn off UAC or anything of that nature (you do have to disable UAC to sign the drivers, but you can re-enable it after with no ill effects).
There is always a solution to the problem, especially in Windows. Microsoft just wants to keep this stuff as far away from the average user as they can, because mucking around with this stuff can easily reduce the security checks in the OS.
You can actually switch Windows 7 driver signing behavior back to XP style as well (just a warning box instead of automatically removing the driver), but signing drivers you trust via the above method is the more secure way to do it.
Note that this also solves problems with signed drivers that have a bad certificate for one reason or another.
but says you should only run 32 bit apps because the 64 bit ones are broken.
What? When did they ever say that? The apps have always been fine, it's the drivers that have been broken, and they fixed that with Win 7 for any moderately popular devices. The only other issue is IE and 32 bit activex controls (which cannot run in a 64 bit process). In other words the only reason you'd be "stuck" with 32 bit is because various programs it may run are only 32 bit. 64 bit apps run perfectly, which should be a no brainer.
Someone also doesn't seem to understand the difference between the OS and applications, and really the whole bits thing in general.
The reason you run a 64 bit OS on 64 bit hardware is a 32 bit OS is incapable of running 64 bit applications - which means you can't take full advantage of the hardware you just spent all that money on. A 32 bit application runs equally well on both 32 bit machine and a 64 bit machine. It can not, however, run on a 16 bit machine. This is because of addressing: the lower addressing bits are all identical. The first 16 bits in 64 bit machine are addressed exactly the same as the first 16 bits on a 32 bit machine, which is the exact same as the entire addressing space of a 16 bit machine.
In other words, the only reason even a 16 bit application should not work on a 64 bit machine is because of various other OS changes, not any technical reason. That's why windows has always had a "compatibility mode" that interprets the old api calls and such.
So the reason you want to use a 64 bit OS is because it allows you to use your 64 bit hardware to the fullest, and because all the software works with 64 bit, but only 32 bit apps will work. There are a handful of situations where you might have to use a 32 bit version instead of a 64 bit version because various support programs are 32 bit only for now, but those are edge cases.
The trouble with a Mac though, is you're forced to upgrade your software every couple of years. Apple doesn't do backwards compatibility. A buddy of mine switched to windows for exactly this reason - he upgraded OSX and low and behold his $500 software application no longer worked, and the only option was to buy a new version. That $100 upgrade (or whatever it was, I think it was actually less) was actually going to cost him over $500. Since there were cheaper alternatives for the same program in Windows, and he could actually buy a much better windows laptop than the Mac he had for around $500, he decided to switch. Six months in and so far he's happy as a clam.
Apple is great at a lot of things, but 3rd party software support and backwards compatibility is not one of them. That happens to be Microsoft's bread and butter (which they were soundly reminded of with Vista).
Slashdot Mirror
Electronics isn't magic, it runs on logic and logic can be verified.
no response to the brake, it's not surprising that the black box -- presumably using the exact same input controlling the engine -- would claim that the accelerator was fully pressed and the brake was untouched.
I don't see how that is not surprising, I would be flabbergasted to find out that the brake and throttle were controlled on the same I/O port - that's just idiotic. When you have a system that can handle hundreds of I/O ports (trust me, a $4 hobby chip can handle 100 I/O easily, industrial stuff routinely handles thousands of I/O points), why the hell would you put the accelerate and the break on the same one? Not only would it be harder than putting each on its own I/O point, it makes absolutely no sense.
Unless Toyota's engineers are complete idiots and did some bizarre engineering, it's extremely easy to verify that a cross signal is not possible in the hardware, and it should be pretty simple to make sure there isn't a possible condition in your logic that would cause the brake to somehow accelerate.
That's why Toyota has vehemently claimed the cause is not in the ECU, but elsewhere in the design - because verifying the ECU is easy. Coming up with every scenario where the gas pedal could stick or a person could hit both gas and brake at the same time and designing around it is not so easy.
Whom coincidentally spend...
Ok, that has to be the most retarded thing I've read all day. God damn, you try to sound smart and you end up just sounding like a moron.
Whom is the objective form, who is the subjective form. If you're using it as a subject, use fucking who!
In case you aren't getting it, it should be "Who coincidentally spend...".
A correct usage of whom would be something like "Major car manufacturers, three of whom are GM, Ford and Chrysler, spend..."
Oh, I'm not surprised. I just don't buy their line directly like you're doing.
Toyota has always taken the position that it must be a design error, they just claimed it was never in the firmware. Toyota never once claimed it was caused by driver error.
It's the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that is suggesting that the sudden acceleration was driver error. And even then, Toyota is cautioning that these data loggers were there to verify that their systems were operating correctly - they were never meant to determine what happened in a crash.
In other words, the US government is vindicating Toyota, and Toyota is saying "Hold on, not too fast, it's still possible we've screwed up, and we should have had systems in place to prevent it anyway."
It's essentially the opposite of what you're saying.
Reading comprehension fail. First, delete the first sentence, because it is uttered by a lawyer. You cannot trust as lawyer to quote his opponent accurately.
This really boils my blood. Not that it's about lawyers, I don't give a shit about them, but the idea that because a statement from a particular person or group of people or a member of a certain profession it should automatically be discarded without regard to whether or not it is accurate. That is the ultimate in stupidity, and for me completely invalidates the rest of your statement (turn about is fair play). It's not even that I don't believe what you say, I'm sure you're probably at least close to right, I just don't care to read the words of an idiot.
If you don't trust a source, then verify the statement. If it doesn't matter that much to you, do a quick google search. If it comes up right away that a Toyota exec said exactly what the dirty nasty lawyer said the Toyota exec, well I guess you can trust lawyers more than you thought eh? If it turns out the dirty nasty lawyer is lying or misstating the Toyota exec, call him out on it. If you can't verify one way or the other, then just treat the statement with skepticism.
However your signature indicates that you want to win a Darwin award yourself.
How can this be, a post which is so internally self contradictory?
I'm not sure I understand this statement, could you clarify? What in his signature makes him a candidate for a Darwin award? If you're saying that making his disgust of a documented child rapist known is stupid enough that he should be removed from the gene pool, then I can't help but wonder what world you live in.
Also, assuming my previous analysis of you is correct, if I ever have kids and you come near them, I'll blow your fucking head off.
Cheers :)
To be fair, have you ever seen a one-eyed monkey drive? They can parallel park like nobody's business!
It's pretty easy actually, if you have the hardware you can verify the ECU and software.
Seriously, you'd think nobody has thought of this shit before.
Some changes that were heralded as progressive turned out not be improvements and were regressed. So does it really have to be a positive change for the person to have been progressive?
All definitions are made on an individual basis. Obviously if an "improvement" was regressed, people did not believe it was an improvement, so your point does not stand.
Progressive is moving forward, but the destination doesn't matter.
To make a car analogy, you've got five people in a car Cincinnati:
One guy wants to go to New York, another guy wants to go to Florida. These two are both progressives, but they have very different destinations.
A third passenger wants to go back to California, it was so nice there he wants to stay. A fourth wants to head back to Seattle, the rain is soothing and besides, anything is better than Cincinnati.
These two are both regressives, but again they want to go back to very different places.
Then there is the last passenger - he really likes the Bengals and doesn't really want to leave Cincinnati at all. He's a conservative.
Right now the two progressives are fighting over the driver's seat and have basically settled on taking turns driving, each trying to get to their destination as fast as possible while they are at the wheel. The regressives and the conservative haven't had a chance to drive in a long, long time.
do you realize (and would you agree) that this would make GW Bush a very, very progressive president when you consider the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act?
Well, since G.W. Bush was an extremely progressive Republican, it makes sense doesn't it?
Bush was not a conservative, he was a liberal Republican. There is a huge difference between the two (there is nothing stopping anyone from being a conservative Democrat either - there are actually quite a few). Republicans tend to be more conservative and Democrats tend to be more liberal, but the two are not mutually exclusive by any means. The only difference between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican is the agenda they are pushing forward.
By definition anybody who seeks major change cannot be a conservative, unless the changes are only to undo previous changes.
I don't know if you noticed, but the track pad requires you to physically touch a device, and has a very limited interaction surface.
Think of this as a trackpad the size of your desk, which is pretty freakin cool for use mobile folks.
Just punch a wall.
Ah, I see, so humanity must have suffered constant foot pain before the last few centuries of shoe design.
There is actually some good evidence emerging that suggests shoes do a lot of harm to our posture and weaken the feet in general. Barefoot running, for example, is booming because once you develop the muscles that have been left unused for so long, injury rates plummet compared to standard running shoes.
The jarring heel-toe motion that cushy shoes promote is downright bad for your body.
Drivers are almost exclusively for controlling hardware. That's what "driver" means - it's short for device driver. You need drivers for the IR camera, but a standard software app is what you need for mouse simulation.
Software drivers (i.e. drivers that don't interface to hardware) do exist, but they are usually a bad idea.
You know it doesn't work when you dunk them in water man.
Seriously.
I like not having to carry a bulky mouse in my laptop bag over having to carry one (the IR setup is much much smaller).
Obviously you aren't going to use this for a desktop PC.
This, however, would be awesome for a laptop, especially if you like to have your laptop on a stand for a more ergonomic experience. Now all you need is a laser keyboard and you're set.
Why the hell do you think artists tour 350 days out of the year? If they were making the $10 million per multi-platinum album that the record company is, they wouldn't need to do all that touring.
And it's only the successful bands that can book a tour that long at a profit - you know, the ones who can sell concert seats for $50 each and pack out several thousand seat houses? They get a much bigger cut of that money, and they have fewer loans to pay on it.
Put it to you another way, if you're making $5000 a night, how many nights do you have to work to cover your $2 million debt to the record label? I'll give you a hint: It can't be done in a single year, even if you played every single night. At 10% of the proceeds for a rock concert, you have to pack 1000 seats at $50 to make $5,000 a night.
The guys you see on cribs fall into one of two catagories: they either live off their advances and don't actually have anything in their bank account, in which case as soon as they loose popularity they are bankrupt and have to go work at McDonald's; or they are able to pack 5,000+ seat houses at $50+ a seat, and are then able to pay off their record label debt in only 80 shows, and are thus able to make a couple million dollars by working 150 shows a year (three nights a week).
The article mentions that 30 Seconds to Mars sold 2 million copies of their album and didn't make a single dime off of it. All their money came from the tour. The original Courtney Love article that the article references says the exact same thing.
If an artist could make money on album sales, they wouldn't need to tour nearly as much.
Regardless of whether or not the guy wins some money in the lawsuit
If the claim is legitimate (and it appears to be on the surface) the guy wins 84% of any sale of facebook, and potentially 84% of Zuckerberg's fortune (since it's all on paper) - that 4 billion will suddenly become 650 million - quite a drop!
Not only that, but Zuckerberg will no longer have a controlling interest in the company. In business, the minor shareholder gets zero say in the business. It will effectively become Ceglia's Facebook, not Zuckerberg's.
Unfortunately, Ceglia sounds like just as big a douche as Zuckerberg, so likely little will change on the face of Facebook.
Don't bother iammani clearly has no sense of humor.
An odd detail is that 84% number is said to be as of 2004. Why 2004?
Because the website was finished in Feb 2004 - the increasing stake in the business was based on the status of the website after Jan 1 2004. For every day after Jan 1, Ceglia got an increased 1% stake in the business until the website was finished. It was finished 34 days later, that's an extra 34% stake in the company.
Thus, 84% instead of 50%, and it stopped growing Feb 4, 2004.
For a contract to be valid it needs only two things: compensation, and to not violate any state or federal laws. On compensation, contract law follows what is known as the "Peppercorn Doctrine".
That is, a peppercorn is good enough to count as compensation, so long as both parties agree to it. I.e. I could set up contract for you to paint my house for a peppercorn, and if you agree to it that contract is enforceable by law. You have to finish my house, and I have to pay you a peppercorn for it.
For the second, I've never heard of any laws restricting exactly how one sells stake in their business. On the surface the contract seems perfectly legitimate, and just because it was two students who drew it up and signed it doesn't make it any less enforceable.
Statue of limitations. English--learn it!
Holy shit! That's the funniest thing I've read in a while.
For the record, you might try Googling "Statue of limitations" next time and noticing that Google changes it to "statute" automatically for you.
It's a clue, you should follow it.
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic127187.html
It allows you to sign the drivers yourself without having to turn off UAC or anything of that nature (you do have to disable UAC to sign the drivers, but you can re-enable it after with no ill effects).
There is always a solution to the problem, especially in Windows. Microsoft just wants to keep this stuff as far away from the average user as they can, because mucking around with this stuff can easily reduce the security checks in the OS.
You can actually switch Windows 7 driver signing behavior back to XP style as well (just a warning box instead of automatically removing the driver), but signing drivers you trust via the above method is the more secure way to do it.
Note that this also solves problems with signed drivers that have a bad certificate for one reason or another.
but says you should only run 32 bit apps because the 64 bit ones are broken.
What? When did they ever say that? The apps have always been fine, it's the drivers that have been broken, and they fixed that with Win 7 for any moderately popular devices. The only other issue is IE and 32 bit activex controls (which cannot run in a 64 bit process). In other words the only reason you'd be "stuck" with 32 bit is because various programs it may run are only 32 bit. 64 bit apps run perfectly, which should be a no brainer.
Someone also doesn't seem to understand the difference between the OS and applications, and really the whole bits thing in general.
The reason you run a 64 bit OS on 64 bit hardware is a 32 bit OS is incapable of running 64 bit applications - which means you can't take full advantage of the hardware you just spent all that money on. A 32 bit application runs equally well on both 32 bit machine and a 64 bit machine. It can not, however, run on a 16 bit machine. This is because of addressing: the lower addressing bits are all identical. The first 16 bits in 64 bit machine are addressed exactly the same as the first 16 bits on a 32 bit machine, which is the exact same as the entire addressing space of a 16 bit machine.
In other words, the only reason even a 16 bit application should not work on a 64 bit machine is because of various other OS changes, not any technical reason. That's why windows has always had a "compatibility mode" that interprets the old api calls and such.
So the reason you want to use a 64 bit OS is because it allows you to use your 64 bit hardware to the fullest, and because all the software works with 64 bit, but only 32 bit apps will work. There are a handful of situations where you might have to use a 32 bit version instead of a 64 bit version because various support programs are 32 bit only for now, but those are edge cases.
The trouble with a Mac though, is you're forced to upgrade your software every couple of years. Apple doesn't do backwards compatibility. A buddy of mine switched to windows for exactly this reason - he upgraded OSX and low and behold his $500 software application no longer worked, and the only option was to buy a new version. That $100 upgrade (or whatever it was, I think it was actually less) was actually going to cost him over $500. Since there were cheaper alternatives for the same program in Windows, and he could actually buy a much better windows laptop than the Mac he had for around $500, he decided to switch. Six months in and so far he's happy as a clam.
Apple is great at a lot of things, but 3rd party software support and backwards compatibility is not one of them. That happens to be Microsoft's bread and butter (which they were soundly reminded of with Vista).