No one is late to the IoT party yet. It's not clear there's even going to be one.
By the time these kinds of trends have a dopey name, the party has already started. If you didn't already have an IoT product well under development by now, its already too late because all the players that will be successful, in what people are calling the IoT, already have a product at or near market release.
IoT is almost a decade old at this point. If there was a party nobody noticed.
Depends on what you want to do. If you have an IoT product to develop, this could be exactly what you want at its heart.
If you have an IoT product in mind, this is the last thing you want. I do this for a living. The problem with this thing is that it takes too much development effort to shave a few bucks off the unit cost. That extra effort translates into longer time to market. While you are loosing precious months trying to get your OS running with everything you need in a tiny memory footprint, another up-and-coming startup built a product around one of the other SBCs out there that isn't vastly under-powered. They beat you to market by 6 months with a product that only costs $5 more than yours, and you suddenly find your brilliant IoT product just got flushed down the loo because you couldn't execute a viable business plan.
Time to market is huge in this day and age. Just ask Intel and Microsoft how their IoT plans are rolling out, and you'll find out real quick that even a superior product at a lower price point will have a hard time competing when you're late to the party.
This is exactly backwards (which probably explains why IoT is almost a decade old and has yet to find any legs).
In the embedded space a saving of a few cents per unit can mean the difference between failure and success. If your goal is to chase venture capital/funding, then certainly you want quick time to market, but if your goal is to sell units and make a profit on each one then an extra two or three months getting your product cost-competitive is better.
For things like IoT you may *think* that adding $5 on top of the price of a unit is fine as long as you are first to market, but in reality when the consumer wants to buy 20 of them to outfit a building they're going to go with your competitor who spent the extra two-three months.
I'm currently dealing with about 2M lines of crappy code written in an ide that did/does soft wrapping of lines. Looks really pretty in that particular Windows ONLY
IDE, but in anything else it looks like shit when you 1k, 2k and some times even 3k characters on a single line.
German car makers are busy trying to compete with Tesla and losing ground... Their sales are plummeting on the models that compete with MS and MX....
Are you on drugs? Which luxury german carmaker has their sales eaten up by EVs?
This will mean that resale values of used luxury ICE cars will do a massive drop in value.
This quote, right here, shows that you are relatively new to buying/selling luxury automobiles: the luxury autos have *always* had poorer resale value than the other segments. Always. You are now pointing at a statistic that has been true for the last four decades, and saying "EVs caused that!"
No they're not. I can't hook my semi trailer up to any car electric or otherwise and then drive coast-to-coast without a break to refuel let alone pee. In fact come to think of it, I doubt anyone really uses cars anyway since you just can't haul cargo like you can with an 18 wheeler.
Ten points of use of sarcasm, 0 for seeing the point: electric cars in use right now are a rounding error.
The article looked at that, and found 90%+ of people live in a place where they can charge.
A lot more than 90% of people can get by with libreoffice in the place of openoffice, yet they don't. Just because people *can* doesn't mean that they *will*
Besides, what you said is not in the article - TFA says that 90% of people can charge either at home or at work but they (very stupidly) don't give the percentage of workplaces that support charging.
So, yeah, 90% of people can charge at work if the workplace has the infrastructure... In other news, 90% of teenagers would drink beer if they were older than 21.
I spend less of my time charging my EV than you spend filling your car's gas tank.
No, you don't. I spend 0 minutes and 0 seconds. You might spend as little time as I do, but it's not possible for you to spend less.
When I stop buy buy break/milk, I stop at a gas station, car is filled while I shop and I pay for everything at the till. Zero minutes and zero seconds.
A modern electric Car engine has 18 moving Parts and needs no gearbox.
I'm pretty certain that is incorrect.
Once battery prices have dropped beyond a certain threshhold the entire global Auto industry will Flip so fast it will make our heads spin. This is bound to happen in the next 5 years, probably in the next 3, once battery prices are low enough.
While I personally can't wait for this to happen, all indications are that, even if every single new-car shopper from today onwards bought an EV instead of an ICE, it will still be around 2030 before a mere half of the cars on the road are EV.
The only way to speed up the process will be to stop selling fuel, or raise the price by a few orders of magnitude.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it. Punish the police AND the lawbreaker. Letting the sociopath go free makes YOU liable for his future crimes.
Look up fruit of the tainted tree. Any evidence gained illegally should not be used, or else it wouldn't be long before all evidence was gained illegally.
It'll be a pretty short game - there only needs to be a single ad-free alternative for blocks of users to migrate to at a time.
What keeps facebook going is the critical mass of users. If they start annoying blocks of users at a time then that is enough to get that one block to use an alternative in addition to facebook
Firstly, I don't say that it doesn't happen, I say it's too rare to be making policy decisions on - you don't make policies based on outliers. Secondly, in the case you mention the guy was refused by only one person? No brothers/sisters? No cousins? No mothers, aunts or uncles?
Yet, in your little mind, anyone, anywhere and anytime who knows anything about the poor that conflicts with your chosen ideology must be privileged?
Nope. Only you are saying that.
Oh, so you didn't accuse a former-beggar of being privileged? Luckily/. doesn't allow revisionism in comments - your stupid accusation telling a former-beggar black man that he is privileged is up there for the world to see.
I've been there, as a beggar;
The people who truly have no one to turn to are outliers,
So, you were a homeless beggar by choice? Or is the answer going to be more insults and ad hominem?
Why do you keep going there - twice already I've indicated that nothing was by choice. Happily, I can ad hominem you, being part of a protected group, and I can also tell you to check your fucking privilege before opening your mouth.
Seriously, you started life on the easy mode, and now you want to tell people who started on the highest difficulty exactly what *their* problem is? What the fuck is wrong with you man? Are you delusional?
No it isn't. Well, not fully eradicate, but at least pull all the teeth so that it's on par with FSM beliefs. It worked against the Nazis - all the Nazi symbolism is illegal, and that caused it to be all but gone. Once you start the purge you'll find that all the moderates happily give up the belief system and you don't have to purge 25% of the planet, only the extreme 0.001%.
We didn't have to kill all the Germans of WWII to eradicate Nazis. Once the purge seemed imminent people gave up the system before anyone with a gun got near them.
But a few bad apples don't make a religion bad. Christianity has plenty of problems.
Sure they do, but their extremists for the last 20 odd years have hardly reached the body count of Islam extremists in this year alone! You can't really compare the two.
I never claimed you were white. You know I'm wrong, yet you can't get anything right. Based on your own statements, you were a beggar by choice. Welfare isn't a trap. You indicated you had help available, but chose to not use it. So help available isn't a trap. Or you are the sole exception?
I didn't indicate anything about my choices. I give, and give freely, but only to charities - they handout food for a reason, you know. Yet, in your little mind, anyone, anywhere and anytime who knows anything about the poor that conflicts with your chosen ideology must be privileged?
The number of people who truly have nobody (and are not mentally ill) are a rounding error, yet you want a policy for all to be based on the rounding-error population.
You're talking about handing money to someone who has already been refused by family and friends
You are so privileged you can't even conceive of a world where friends and family might decline to give money because they have none to give. Do you want to give a moral test to everyone who receives government money? Like the drug tests, they should start with elected officials.
No, you exclusionary fascist - I'm not white, and until I grew up and got a job, not privileged either. The problem is that you are so far removed from the plight of poor people that what you imagine to be poor people has no relation to reality.
I've been there, as a beggar; you clearly haven't. The people who truly have no one to turn to are outliers, so far from the median you'll have trouble spotting them. Those lofty ideals you vomit from your ivory tower simply make *you* feel good; if put into practice they'll simply expand the welfare trap.
But it's all good, because at least you'll be able to say you thought all the correct thoughts....
Except through a very controlled process, it's hard to find those specific cases.
It seems so. The things to look for is whether they've been able to manage their own budget for the past few months (or years), and whether they've suddenly had a giant one-time payment. More research can be done in this area.
It's easier than it appears - no one grows up and lives in a vacuum. If the beggar cannot find a single family member, sibling, nephew, cousin or friend to give them money, then the odds are high that this person will squander any money given.
Face it, the person's friends and family have known this person far better and far longer than you will, and if they *all* think it's a bad idea to give this person money, then it's probably a bad idea to give this person money.
Lack of opportunity teaches people to slack. Money is irrelevant to whether people slack. That you object to helping people doesn't mean you have to lie about it too.
You're talking about handing money to someone who has already been refused by family and friends - IOW, people who know this person do not want to give them money. This makes it highly likely that this person does not spend their their money on food and shelter.
From the summary, they're calling it "autosteer". Looks like the penny finally dropped.
Even so it is still the same inherent misplaced trust and/or inherently flawed concept. "Be lazy, but also be required to be instantly attentive at all times, ready to 'jump in' to control."
This is not a viable technology yet at design stages!
Meanwhile, over a thousand people per day are dying in traffic accidents worldwide. SDCs likely could prevent most of those. You want that progress held up because, what, 3 people have died in a year? Get some sense of perspective.
Self-driving cars might have prevented it, but so would riding unicorns to work and back. We don't have either.
You are a perfect illustration of the problem Tesla faces. You think you know what an airplane's autopilot does, based solely on the name, but you have no real clue.
All I know is that an airplane's autopilot does not require the pilot to keep their hands on the controls and be ready to take over with millisecond reaction times. The Tesla does. Big difference.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is late to the IoT party yet. It's not clear there's even going to be one.
By the time these kinds of trends have a dopey name, the party has already started. If you didn't already have an IoT product well under development by now, its already too late because all the players that will be successful, in what people are calling the IoT, already have a product at or near market release.
IoT is almost a decade old at this point. If there was a party nobody noticed.
Depends on what you want to do. If you have an IoT product to develop, this could be exactly what you want at its heart.
If you have an IoT product in mind, this is the last thing you want. I do this for a living. The problem with this thing is that it takes too much development effort to shave a few bucks off the unit cost. That extra effort translates into longer time to market. While you are loosing precious months trying to get your OS running with everything you need in a tiny memory footprint, another up-and-coming startup built a product around one of the other SBCs out there that isn't vastly under-powered. They beat you to market by 6 months with a product that only costs $5 more than yours, and you suddenly find your brilliant IoT product just got flushed down the loo because you couldn't execute a viable business plan.
Time to market is huge in this day and age. Just ask Intel and Microsoft how their IoT plans are rolling out, and you'll find out real quick that even a superior product at a lower price point will have a hard time competing when you're late to the party.
This is exactly backwards (which probably explains why IoT is almost a decade old and has yet to find any legs).
In the embedded space a saving of a few cents per unit can mean the difference between failure and success. If your goal is to chase venture capital/funding, then certainly you want quick time to market, but if your goal is to sell units and make a profit on each one then an extra two or three months getting your product cost-competitive is better.
For things like IoT you may *think* that adding $5 on top of the price of a unit is fine as long as you are first to market, but in reality when the consumer wants to buy 20 of them to outfit a building they're going to go with your competitor who spent the extra two-three months.
OOP can invert our procedural tendencies.
Close. OOP does invert our natural tendencies.
Just run it through indent and be done with it.
Unless it's Python, in which case you're out of luck.
Anybody else notice that this process to have a computer mind-control you is reported by Eliza?
German car makers are busy trying to compete with Tesla and losing ground ... Their sales are plummeting on the models that compete with MS and MX....
Are you on drugs? Which luxury german carmaker has their sales eaten up by EVs?
This will mean that resale values of used luxury ICE cars will do a massive drop in value.
This quote, right here, shows that you are relatively new to buying/selling luxury automobiles: the luxury autos have *always* had poorer resale value than the other segments. Always. You are now pointing at a statistic that has been true for the last four decades, and saying "EVs caused that!"
Ok, that will be next year. Tesla M 3 start at the average price of a sold car in America, and less than average in most of Europe.
So it hasn't happened yet? Okay, then wake him up next year when it *does* happen.
People are already using electric cars.
No they're not. I can't hook my semi trailer up to any car electric or otherwise and then drive coast-to-coast without a break to refuel let alone pee. In fact come to think of it, I doubt anyone really uses cars anyway since you just can't haul cargo like you can with an 18 wheeler.
Ten points of use of sarcasm, 0 for seeing the point: electric cars in use right now are a rounding error.
The article looked at that, and found 90%+ of people live in a place where they can charge.
A lot more than 90% of people can get by with libreoffice in the place of openoffice, yet they don't. Just because people *can* doesn't mean that they *will*
Besides, what you said is not in the article - TFA says that 90% of people can charge either at home or at work but they (very stupidly) don't give the percentage of workplaces that support charging.
So, yeah, 90% of people can charge at work if the workplace has the infrastructure... In other news, 90% of teenagers would drink beer if they were older than 21.
Useless article.
I spend less of my time charging my EV than you spend filling your car's gas tank.
No, you don't. I spend 0 minutes and 0 seconds. You might spend as little time as I do, but it's not possible for you to spend less.
When I stop buy buy break/milk, I stop at a gas station, car is filled while I shop and I pay for everything at the till. Zero minutes and zero seconds.
A modern electric Car engine has 18 moving Parts and needs no gearbox.
I'm pretty certain that is incorrect.
Once battery prices have dropped beyond a certain threshhold the entire global Auto industry will Flip so fast it will make our heads spin. This is bound to happen in the next 5 years, probably in the next 3, once battery prices are low enough.
While I personally can't wait for this to happen, all indications are that, even if every single new-car shopper from today onwards bought an EV instead of an ICE, it will still be around 2030 before a mere half of the cars on the road are EV.
The only way to speed up the process will be to stop selling fuel, or raise the price by a few orders of magnitude.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it. Punish the police AND the lawbreaker. Letting the sociopath go free makes YOU liable for his future crimes.
Look up fruit of the tainted tree. Any evidence gained illegally should not be used, or else it wouldn't be long before all evidence was gained illegally.
This game of cat and mouse
It'll be a pretty short game - there only needs to be a single ad-free alternative for blocks of users to migrate to at a time.
What keeps facebook going is the critical mass of users. If they start annoying blocks of users at a time then that is enough to get that one block to use an alternative in addition to facebook
Firstly, I don't say that it doesn't happen, I say it's too rare to be making policy decisions on - you don't make policies based on outliers. Secondly, in the case you mention the guy was refused by only one person? No brothers/sisters? No cousins? No mothers, aunts or uncles?
Yet, in your little mind, anyone, anywhere and anytime who knows anything about the poor that conflicts with your chosen ideology must be privileged?
Nope. Only you are saying that.
Oh, so you didn't accuse a former-beggar of being privileged? Luckily /. doesn't allow revisionism in comments - your stupid accusation telling a former-beggar black man that he is privileged is up there for the world to see.
I've been there, as a beggar; The people who truly have no one to turn to are outliers,
So, you were a homeless beggar by choice? Or is the answer going to be more insults and ad hominem?
Why do you keep going there - twice already I've indicated that nothing was by choice. Happily, I can ad hominem you, being part of a protected group, and I can also tell you to check your fucking privilege before opening your mouth.
Seriously, you started life on the easy mode, and now you want to tell people who started on the highest difficulty exactly what *their* problem is? What the fuck is wrong with you man? Are you delusional?
A belief system is rather hard to eradicate.
No it isn't. Well, not fully eradicate, but at least pull all the teeth so that it's on par with FSM beliefs. It worked against the Nazis - all the Nazi symbolism is illegal, and that caused it to be all but gone. Once you start the purge you'll find that all the moderates happily give up the belief system and you don't have to purge 25% of the planet, only the extreme 0.001%.
We didn't have to kill all the Germans of WWII to eradicate Nazis. Once the purge seemed imminent people gave up the system before anyone with a gun got near them.
But a few bad apples don't make a religion bad. Christianity has plenty of problems.
Sure they do, but their extremists for the last 20 odd years have hardly reached the body count of Islam extremists in this year alone! You can't really compare the two.
I never claimed you were white. You know I'm wrong, yet you can't get anything right. Based on your own statements, you were a beggar by choice. Welfare isn't a trap. You indicated you had help available, but chose to not use it. So help available isn't a trap. Or you are the sole exception?
I didn't indicate anything about my choices. I give, and give freely, but only to charities - they handout food for a reason, you know. Yet, in your little mind, anyone, anywhere and anytime who knows anything about the poor that conflicts with your chosen ideology must be privileged?
The number of people who truly have nobody (and are not mentally ill) are a rounding error, yet you want a policy for all to be based on the rounding-error population.
You're talking about handing money to someone who has already been refused by family and friends
You are so privileged you can't even conceive of a world where friends and family might decline to give money because they have none to give. Do you want to give a moral test to everyone who receives government money? Like the drug tests, they should start with elected officials.
No, you exclusionary fascist - I'm not white, and until I grew up and got a job, not privileged either. The problem is that you are so far removed from the plight of poor people that what you imagine to be poor people has no relation to reality.
I've been there, as a beggar; you clearly haven't. The people who truly have no one to turn to are outliers, so far from the median you'll have trouble spotting them. Those lofty ideals you vomit from your ivory tower simply make *you* feel good; if put into practice they'll simply expand the welfare trap.
But it's all good, because at least you'll be able to say you thought all the correct thoughts....
Except through a very controlled process, it's hard to find those specific cases.
It seems so. The things to look for is whether they've been able to manage their own budget for the past few months (or years), and whether they've suddenly had a giant one-time payment. More research can be done in this area.
It's easier than it appears - no one grows up and lives in a vacuum. If the beggar cannot find a single family member, sibling, nephew, cousin or friend to give them money, then the odds are high that this person will squander any money given.
Face it, the person's friends and family have known this person far better and far longer than you will, and if they *all* think it's a bad idea to give this person money, then it's probably a bad idea to give this person money.
Money for nothing teaches people to slack.
Lack of opportunity teaches people to slack. Money is irrelevant to whether people slack. That you object to helping people doesn't mean you have to lie about it too.
You're talking about handing money to someone who has already been refused by family and friends - IOW, people who know this person do not want to give them money. This makes it highly likely that this person does not spend their their money on food and shelter.
I would ASK the person what they NEED
Have you ever done that?
I've done that multiple times; roughly half the time the beggar isn't interested in non-money stuff like food.
They still should not be returning coordinates if the location is unknown.
But the location is known.
You could say the same thing for a result that returns "Earth, somewhere..." instead of saying it for "United States, somewhere".
If the location cannot be narrowed down further than half a continent, then the location is most definitely not known.
From the summary, they're calling it "autosteer". Looks like the penny finally dropped.
Even so it is still the same inherent misplaced trust and/or inherently flawed concept. "Be lazy, but also be required to be instantly attentive at all times, ready to 'jump in' to control."
This is not a viable technology yet at design stages!
That penny will drop later.
Meanwhile, over a thousand people per day are dying in traffic accidents worldwide. SDCs likely could prevent most of those. You want that progress held up because, what, 3 people have died in a year? Get some sense of perspective.
Self-driving cars might have prevented it, but so would riding unicorns to work and back. We don't have either.
You are a perfect illustration of the problem Tesla faces. You think you know what an airplane's autopilot does, based solely on the name, but you have no real clue.
All I know is that an airplane's autopilot does not require the pilot to keep their hands on the controls and be ready to take over with millisecond reaction times. The Tesla does. Big difference.