Perhaps your current Mazda doesn't. But they're rolling out Mazda Mobile Start From a quick look it allows you to lock/unlock your doors, start the car, get it's location, etc. from your mobile phone.
Cars are expensive. It likely doesn't take all that many people to say "thanks anyway" and walk off the lot before the message is received.
Until a major incident occurs, damn near everyone in the public will remain totally oblivious to this issue. I've brought it up in conversation with quite a few tech people I know and not one has thought about it at all, and most never knew it was an issue.
Yeah, it's pretty simple: don't get a car with OnStar
Can you even get a new GM vehicle w/o OnStar?
(I think there's a competing service out there like this from one of the other makers),
UConnect from Chrysler/Dodge/FIAT/Jeep & Ram
Sync on Ford
Assist on BMW
Mercedes mbrace
Toyota Safety Connect
Honda Entune
Nissan NissanConnect
Hyundai BlueLink
Etc. and so on
I don't know how many of those currently ship models w/o this, but I imagine it won't be too long before you can't even by a vehicle that doesn't come with this.
I don't know about the newest vehicles, but I have two GM cars from the early 2000's that came with OnStar. it was 2 or three connectors that needed to be unplugged to disable it in those. But I'm guessing it's probably a lot more difficult in current ones. I'm also guessing that one of two things are going to happen in the very near future. It will either become illegal to disconnect these systems. Either through inspection, or if you are in a wreck and they find it's disconnected you get in trouble. Or the insurance companies will add a section in your policy that they are not liable for anything if you get in a wreck and they discover it was disabled.
My back pain went away after I started using heroin. One of the side effects is that I've also lost a bunch of weight. For the first few months I saved a bunch of money on food too. But my medication has gotten rather expensive. I keep telling myself that my health is worth the added expense though.
If you've owned a Porsche of any kind and have been driving two seaters all of your life, I can't imagine you'd be very happy with the handling of a Hellcat. I have an early 2000's Vette and I found the Hellcat a little disappointing. It has twice the horsepower, but with the extra 1000 lbs., it felt marginally better at best. It also doesn't have anywhere near the same handling feel. Granted, the numbers show that a stock C5 is about.5 to 1 second slower 0-60, and stopping and skid pad numbers are about equal. But there's a big difference between skid pad performance and slalom. That extra 1000 lbs. doesn't like to change directions.
It's not difficult to disable OnStar on the C5. I don't remember if it was 2 or 3 connectors. But it was pretty simple. Ligenfelter will drop in an engine with 500 HP for $14K. Or if you really need more, they have a 725 HP twin turbo 427 for $40K.
I thought the same thing regarding the rear on the C7, but it's grown on me. Actually my daughter was 11 when she first saw the C7 and the first thing she asked me was why it didn't have round tail lights.
I freaking hate Comcast. Where I live I have no other choice. I need it for work. Fortunately my company pays for it. But there was a post earlier today that said Comcast uncapped 1 Gb was $80 per month somewhere in Georgia. I'm paying almost $15 more than that per month for 1/40 the speed. I could probably get faster speeds if I install their new modem. But then I also get to be part of their share-my bandwidth-via-WiFi-with-any-Comcast-customer-that-chooses-to-connect-to-it program.
Number 2 rector was building up pressure and the operators were unable to relieve it. The valves seemed to be stuck, even after they got emergency battery power to them. The containment vessel was over its design limit for pressure. Then suddenly the pressure fell, and no-one knows why.
Oh they know why. But they don't think the world is ready to hear about that big ass lizard that took a bite out of the containment vessel and absorbed the radiation.
Wars have been predominantly fought as tools of the elite. Yes, individuals squabble, fight, and bicker. But to wage war requires the focused interests of the moneyed ruling class.
Name one war in modern history that was started by a majority vote of the people to do so?
Not that the people voted, but after 9-11, a majority of the US population rallied behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Granted, the war in Iraq was largely based off of incorrect intel, but at the time most supported it off of what was known.
The catalyst for those wars was the four hijacked planes, which was certainly not voted on by the people in the various countries those in the Taliban came from.
The Korean war had a 78% approval rating the first year. Granted, that dropped considerably after the first year. Vietnam was similar. Only 22% of democrats disapproved of the Vietnam war in the beginning vs. 28% of Republicans, who disapproved, when it started. It's interesting how the Democrat disapproval rating for Vietnam increased once Nixon went into office and the republicans disapproval rating decreased some. After both steadily rising for years
The majority of the US wanted to stay out of WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was attacked the public opinion quickly changed.
But yeah, most of us would like to avoid wars as much as possible. Once society advances to the point of no longer being tribal, most of us aren't interested in waging war unless we're directly attacked. But that's a first world perspective where little, if anything, is scarce.
I have now. But the tabs are still showing across the top of the browser too. Is there a setting to get rid of them? I just want the tabs along the left side of the browser window.
Yes. Granted the last time was a couple of months ago, and I don't remember any specifics, but I remember it didn't work the way I had hoped and uninstalled it after about 10 minutes. Does it now have working vertical tabs? TIA.
No kidding. I've gotten to the point where I'd be happy with something that just had vertical tabs. They don't even have to be nested. But apparently that's just too much to ask. With 16:9 monitors being the standard these days, you'd think that people would welcome the ability to place the tabs along the side of the browser. I don't see how having more than a handful of tabs open is even workable with them lined up across the top. They get too small to even see what the heck they are. Or we're in a very small minority of users who open more than a few. But I find that hard to believe.
This is a general encyclopedia, who knows how old or where this came from.
3 - 20 mSv [radiologyinfo.org]
The publication they reference at the bottom of the page is from 2007. I didn't look at it, or where it got it's numbers from either.
2 - 16 mSv [theguardian.com]
It's the Guardian. Assuming it's written by a typical reporter, who knows where they got this number from.
30 mSv [wikipedia.org]
This is a value in the page about "Sievert". I doubt anyone has looked at the value given for a CT scan since it was entered.
1 - 100 mSv [wikipedia.org]
That last article lists Head CT as 56 mSv, and Cardiac CT angiogram as 40 - 100 mSv.
You're looking at the wrong column. The values you are giving are in mGy (milliGray) not mSv. It lists a head CT as 1-2 mSv and a cardiac as 9-12mSv
I didn't look too closely at the citations, but did skim them. The one used for the cardiac scan in mSv was from 2010. The value in mGy was from 2008. The head CT dosage in mSv was also from the 2010 paper, but the dosage in mGy was from 2003.
I've been using FF for years and currently have 15 windows with 6 to 30 tabs open in each one. This is on a machine with 16 gigs of RAM. But FF never comes close to using all of it. It will usually run for a couple of weeks and slowly creep it's RAM usage up to around 2.5 gigs before becoming unstable. At which point I kill the process and restart/restore all tabs and it goes for a couple weeks. It's annoying as hell, but I have to have a browser that I can keep the tabs along the left side of the window. Chrome won't allow for it, neither will Pale Moon. I've been trying Opera as it does have this option. But it duplicates the tabs across the top as well. A few releases back FF would crash/become unresponsive a couple times per day. I was ready to find something else then, but there was no other choice that had vertical tabs.
A CT scan is 30mSv. Also, a CT scan is a single large dosage instead of a low dosage over a long period of time.
No it's not. Your information is extremely outdated. The highest dosage you get from a CT scan is for cardiac function imaging. It's because you need to look the heart during several different points through the cardiac cycle.
On a typical 64-slice CT scanner the dosage is 5 to 10mSv for a cardiac function scan. That's going to be the highest dosage as any scanner with less than a 64-slice detector array will give unusable images and a very high radiation dosage. Almost no one is using these for cardiac imaging. A 64 slice CT scanner is very versatile, but not good for cardiac imaging.
Most hospitals are using 256 and 320 slice CT scanners for cardiac imaging currently. And 640 slice scanners are now out in the wild. Rather than needing to spin the array in a continuous helical motion, the high slice scanners can image the entire heart in a single rotation. A 256 or 320 slice scanner can do a cardiac scan with 1 to 2mSv exposure.
There's also dose reduction software. It allows the radiation dosage to be lower and give lower quality images, then clean them up in software after the scan. If you're getting a CT scan for anything other than the heart and it's going to be higher than 1mSv, go somewhere else. And unless there is some reason you need to have the scan done in a CT, such as a non-MRI safe pace maker or other hardware, there's very little need to have this type of scan done. Other than a very specific type of scan, no CT scan should be above 1 mSv.
Seriously. When an idea is so clearly developed that they've made movies involving the use of it, how can a corporation even think of patenting it? This is ridiculous.
You do realize that they use CGI in movies, right? They don't actually invent the stuff in reality. There's a big damn difference between imagining "X" would be really cool and actually figuring out a way to do it.
I suppose you don't think the Wright brothers deserve credit for the first manned, powered, heavier than air, controlled flight either. Daedalus and Icarus, Ezekiel's Chariot and magic carpets preceded them in literature.
I'm not even sure that there are grounds for patenting particular implementations of the glove. The idea of building a glove with electronics to measure e.g. finger bend and pressure is out there in the public domain -- there are dozens of ways to implement it and NONE of them should be patentable, not unless they contain a truly unique invention that is patentable in its own right for e.g. measuring the bend. But I'm not seeing much of that.
It depends on how they are doing it, doesn't it? The patent system annoys the hell out of me, but if they have a unique way of doing it, they they certainly desire a patent for it.
This is just trolling. Next up -- Sony patents a socket that can be inserted in the human brain so one can play the game without any controller at all.
WTF!?! If they come up with this, then they damn well should be able to patent it.
Oh, wait, that too was invented by SF authors (plural), e.g. William Gibson. Maybe they should just put Gibson on retainer.
No. It was imagined by countless Sci-Fi authors. I've yet to read a story about it where they actually gave a working model of how it was done. Just some very generalized way in how it might work, along with a bunch of assumptions about much needed other tech already being in existence.
I run both Crashplan and Backblaze, I also have a copy stored on Amazon Glacier and important files on OneDrive. I also have two external drives that I rotate backups on and keep unplugged.
For most people, what I do is "overkill", but I've lost data before... never again..
I lost data once too when an IBM Deskstar died suddenly and my backups somehow got corrupted too. So I have an external drive that backs up every night, and another that backs up the first Sunday of every month and one that backs up the last Sunday of every month. That last one and one other that I run manually get swapped with ones that are kept off site. I'm still trying to decide on an on line option. So no, I don't think that's overkill at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps your current Mazda doesn't. But they're rolling out Mazda Mobile Start From a quick look it allows you to lock/unlock your doors, start the car, get it's location, etc. from your mobile phone.
Cars are expensive. It likely doesn't take all that many people to say "thanks anyway" and walk off the lot before the message is received.
Until a major incident occurs, damn near everyone in the public will remain totally oblivious to this issue. I've brought it up in conversation with quite a few tech people I know and not one has thought about it at all, and most never knew it was an issue.
Yeah, it's pretty simple: don't get a car with OnStar
Can you even get a new GM vehicle w/o OnStar?
(I think there's a competing service out there like this from one of the other makers),
I don't know how many of those currently ship models w/o this, but I imagine it won't be too long before you can't even by a vehicle that doesn't come with this.
I don't know about the newest vehicles, but I have two GM cars from the early 2000's that came with OnStar. it was 2 or three connectors that needed to be unplugged to disable it in those. But I'm guessing it's probably a lot more difficult in current ones. I'm also guessing that one of two things are going to happen in the very near future. It will either become illegal to disconnect these systems. Either through inspection, or if you are in a wreck and they find it's disconnected you get in trouble. Or the insurance companies will add a section in your policy that they are not liable for anything if you get in a wreck and they discover it was disabled.
My back pain went away after I started using heroin. One of the side effects is that I've also lost a bunch of weight. For the first few months I saved a bunch of money on food too. But my medication has gotten rather expensive. I keep telling myself that my health is worth the added expense though.
Getting to Marks is the first step in establishing permanent colony there.
I usually just take my car to visit Mark. But I don't think he'd be very happy about starting a colony there.
This way humanity could survive mass extinction on Earth.
Mark really does have a top notch bomb shelter.
I'm not sure if we're going to have to wait 500 years for Idiocracy. Carl's Jr. Fuck you, I'm eating
If you've owned a Porsche of any kind and have been driving two seaters all of your life, I can't imagine you'd be very happy with the handling of a Hellcat. I have an early 2000's Vette and I found the Hellcat a little disappointing. It has twice the horsepower, but with the extra 1000 lbs., it felt marginally better at best. It also doesn't have anywhere near the same handling feel. Granted, the numbers show that a stock C5 is about .5 to 1 second slower 0-60, and stopping and skid pad numbers are about equal. But there's a big difference between skid pad performance and slalom. That extra 1000 lbs. doesn't like to change directions.
It's not difficult to disable OnStar on the C5. I don't remember if it was 2 or 3 connectors. But it was pretty simple. Ligenfelter will drop in an engine with 500 HP for $14K. Or if you really need more, they have a 725 HP twin turbo 427 for $40K.
I thought the same thing regarding the rear on the C7, but it's grown on me. Actually my daughter was 11 when she first saw the C7 and the first thing she asked me was why it didn't have round tail lights.
I freaking hate Comcast. Where I live I have no other choice. I need it for work. Fortunately my company pays for it. But there was a post earlier today that said Comcast uncapped 1 Gb was $80 per month somewhere in Georgia. I'm paying almost $15 more than that per month for 1/40 the speed. I could probably get faster speeds if I install their new modem. But then I also get to be part of their share-my bandwidth-via-WiFi-with-any-Comcast-customer-that-chooses-to-connect-to-it program.
Can you tell us how many N.M. that whoosh was? ;-)
$5K cruise missile: http://www.interestingprojects...
You can find Ragnar Benson's formula for homemade C4 if you look around too. TNT isn't that difficult to make either.
Number 2 rector was building up pressure and the operators were unable to relieve it. The valves seemed to be stuck, even after they got emergency battery power to them. The containment vessel was over its design limit for pressure. Then suddenly the pressure fell, and no-one knows why.
Oh they know why. But they don't think the world is ready to hear about that big ass lizard that took a bite out of the containment vessel and absorbed the radiation.
Wars have been predominantly fought as tools of the elite. Yes, individuals squabble, fight, and bicker. But to wage war requires the focused interests of the moneyed ruling class.
Name one war in modern history that was started by a majority vote of the people to do so?
Not that the people voted, but after 9-11, a majority of the US population rallied behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Granted, the war in Iraq was largely based off of incorrect intel, but at the time most supported it off of what was known.
The catalyst for those wars was the four hijacked planes, which was certainly not voted on by the people in the various countries those in the Taliban came from.
The Korean war had a 78% approval rating the first year. Granted, that dropped considerably after the first year. Vietnam was similar. Only 22% of democrats disapproved of the Vietnam war in the beginning vs. 28% of Republicans, who disapproved, when it started. It's interesting how the Democrat disapproval rating for Vietnam increased once Nixon went into office and the republicans disapproval rating decreased some. After both steadily rising for years
The majority of the US wanted to stay out of WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was attacked the public opinion quickly changed.
But yeah, most of us would like to avoid wars as much as possible. Once society advances to the point of no longer being tribal, most of us aren't interested in waging war unless we're directly attacked. But that's a first world perspective where little, if anything, is scarce.
I have now. But the tabs are still showing across the top of the browser too. Is there a setting to get rid of them? I just want the tabs along the left side of the browser window.
Yes. Granted the last time was a couple of months ago, and I don't remember any specifics, but I remember it didn't work the way I had hoped and uninstalled it after about 10 minutes. Does it now have working vertical tabs? TIA.
Dating myself
Isn't about half of /.?
No kidding. I've gotten to the point where I'd be happy with something that just had vertical tabs. They don't even have to be nested. But apparently that's just too much to ask. With 16:9 monitors being the standard these days, you'd think that people would welcome the ability to place the tabs along the side of the browser. I don't see how having more than a handful of tabs open is even workable with them lined up across the top. They get too small to even see what the heck they are. Or we're in a very small minority of users who open more than a few. But I find that hard to believe.
6.8 mSv [britannica.com]
This is a general encyclopedia, who knows how old or where this came from.
3 - 20 mSv [radiologyinfo.org]
The publication they reference at the bottom of the page is from 2007. I didn't look at it, or where it got it's numbers from either.
2 - 16 mSv [theguardian.com]
It's the Guardian. Assuming it's written by a typical reporter, who knows where they got this number from.
30 mSv [wikipedia.org]
This is a value in the page about "Sievert". I doubt anyone has looked at the value given for a CT scan since it was entered.
1 - 100 mSv [wikipedia.org]
That last article lists Head CT as 56 mSv, and Cardiac CT angiogram as 40 - 100 mSv.
You're looking at the wrong column. The values you are giving are in mGy (milliGray) not mSv. It lists a head CT as 1-2 mSv and a cardiac as 9-12mSv
I didn't look too closely at the citations, but did skim them. The one used for the cardiac scan in mSv was from 2010. The value in mGy was from 2008. The head CT dosage in mSv was also from the 2010 paper, but the dosage in mGy was from 2003.
Here's a couple of links from 2013: http://www.news-medical.net/ne... This one's specific to 620 slice scanners: http://www.radiologytoday.net/...
I've been using FF for years and currently have 15 windows with 6 to 30 tabs open in each one. This is on a machine with 16 gigs of RAM. But FF never comes close to using all of it. It will usually run for a couple of weeks and slowly creep it's RAM usage up to around 2.5 gigs before becoming unstable. At which point I kill the process and restart/restore all tabs and it goes for a couple weeks. It's annoying as hell, but I have to have a browser that I can keep the tabs along the left side of the window. Chrome won't allow for it, neither will Pale Moon. I've been trying Opera as it does have this option. But it duplicates the tabs across the top as well. A few releases back FF would crash/become unresponsive a couple times per day. I was ready to find something else then, but there was no other choice that had vertical tabs.
A CT scan is 30mSv. Also, a CT scan is a single large dosage instead of a low dosage over a long period of time.
No it's not. Your information is extremely outdated. The highest dosage you get from a CT scan is for cardiac function imaging. It's because you need to look the heart during several different points through the cardiac cycle.
On a typical 64-slice CT scanner the dosage is 5 to 10mSv for a cardiac function scan. That's going to be the highest dosage as any scanner with less than a 64-slice detector array will give unusable images and a very high radiation dosage. Almost no one is using these for cardiac imaging. A 64 slice CT scanner is very versatile, but not good for cardiac imaging.
Most hospitals are using 256 and 320 slice CT scanners for cardiac imaging currently. And 640 slice scanners are now out in the wild. Rather than needing to spin the array in a continuous helical motion, the high slice scanners can image the entire heart in a single rotation. A 256 or 320 slice scanner can do a cardiac scan with 1 to 2mSv exposure.
There's also dose reduction software. It allows the radiation dosage to be lower and give lower quality images, then clean them up in software after the scan. If you're getting a CT scan for anything other than the heart and it's going to be higher than 1mSv, go somewhere else. And unless there is some reason you need to have the scan done in a CT, such as a non-MRI safe pace maker or other hardware, there's very little need to have this type of scan done. Other than a very specific type of scan, no CT scan should be above 1 mSv.
Seriously. When an idea is so clearly developed that they've made movies involving the use of it, how can a corporation even think of patenting it? This is ridiculous.
You do realize that they use CGI in movies, right? They don't actually invent the stuff in reality. There's a big damn difference between imagining "X" would be really cool and actually figuring out a way to do it.
I suppose you don't think the Wright brothers deserve credit for the first manned, powered, heavier than air, controlled flight either. Daedalus and Icarus, Ezekiel's Chariot and magic carpets preceded them in literature.
I'm not even sure that there are grounds for patenting particular implementations of the glove. The idea of building a glove with electronics to measure e.g. finger bend and pressure is out there in the public domain -- there are dozens of ways to implement it and NONE of them should be patentable, not unless they contain a truly unique invention that is patentable in its own right for e.g. measuring the bend. But I'm not seeing much of that.
It depends on how they are doing it, doesn't it? The patent system annoys the hell out of me, but if they have a unique way of doing it, they they certainly desire a patent for it.
This is just trolling. Next up -- Sony patents a socket that can be inserted in the human brain so one can play the game without any controller at all.
WTF!?! If they come up with this, then they damn well should be able to patent it.
Oh, wait, that too was invented by SF authors (plural), e.g. William Gibson. Maybe they should just put Gibson on retainer.
No. It was imagined by countless Sci-Fi authors. I've yet to read a story about it where they actually gave a working model of how it was done. Just some very generalized way in how it might work, along with a bunch of assumptions about much needed other tech already being in existence.
Now remember, deleting 18 minutes of audio was sufficient to impeach
I do remember. He was never impeached, he resigned.
Only two presidents have ever been impeached; Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
It's not like the human eye can see infrared anyhow. ;-)
1."Edward Snowden does not exist and all that leaked stuff isn't true, the US government is respecting everyone's privacy to the letter of the law,,,"
2. "Only the US government is corrupt, and no other government/business on the planet wold behave that way,,,"
... and then go about believing what I did before, evidence be damned
law enforcement officials waiting on the wings
Is this some alternative phrase to "waiting in the wings"?
I run both Crashplan and Backblaze, I also have a copy stored on Amazon Glacier and important files on OneDrive. I also have two external drives that I rotate backups on and keep unplugged.
For most people, what I do is "overkill", but I've lost data before... never again..
I lost data once too when an IBM Deskstar died suddenly and my backups somehow got corrupted too. So I have an external drive that backs up every night, and another that backs up the first Sunday of every month and one that backs up the last Sunday of every month. That last one and one other that I run manually get swapped with ones that are kept off site. I'm still trying to decide on an on line option. So no, I don't think that's overkill at all.