Internet Explorer is a key component of the operating system. People used to sell operating systems and list built-in programs and features as selling points. Then one day cry babies cried that nobody was downloading their shitty media players and other crap and Microsoft couldn't do that anymore with Windows Media Player, IE, etc. Most of MS's advertised features (all their media center and "to the cloud" bullshit) now have to be manually searched for and downloaded. Basically all theWindows Live! crap.
Years ago, people were dumb enough to think that a browser was not a key piece of software for a personal computer. Today, for many people, the browser is the ONLY piece of software. It is unthinkable to ship an operating system today without including a web browser. Hate Microsoft for being forward-thinking, I guess.
And of course, OEMs were "paid" (sold volumes of keys at a discount) to build systems with Windows pre-installed. They weren't paid cash money to add something that people actively didn't want until Norton/RealNetworks/browser toolbars/etc. crawled into their ass.
Besides that, the post you're replying to was about bundling Chrome with software installers, just like how Java asks you to install shit you don't want (with the default being yes). Installer bundling is bad because the software is unwanted (it has to ride on the qualities of the software actually being requested), and most users will not understand why "the internet is different". The quality of the software being bundled is moot - the issue is the lack of desire/need for the software, and the lack of knowing that you're getting it (most users won't notice the checkbox to disable it, or will be afraid to change any options if they do see it).
You know, OverlyBonchCriticalBonchGuy, people are getting really sick of your astroturfing campaign. Really. At least try to mix in some facts with all the hate and lies.
How about they shouldn't do it in the first place
Shouldn't do what? Use sub-contracters? Are you really that stupid? Google did not do this. A company they contracted the work to contracted the work to yet another company that did. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF
Captcha: agitated. HAHAHA
Google should review the work that it contracts out to make sure it is in line with their standards and guidelines. In fact, I am certain that they did, and the fact is such practices are within their standards and guidelines (the whole "I make the rules, I don't have to follow them" clause).
The fact is they got caught and are now blaming a scapegoat who did exactly what they contracted with them to do.
I bet you believe Bing copies Google's search results, too.
I don't really see why anything old has an excessive value beyond its use.
Oddly, the type of people who appreciate and create music and art are also the type of people who might value form over function.
For violins in particular, as wood ages its tonal qualities change. Therefore, older violins are more valuable than new violins because they sound better. Well... not necessarily better but they have a more desirable sound and warm.
More importantly, a violin made in a factory in china is going to sound like crap compared to a hand made violin by a skilled luthier, even if it is brand new. An old violin was most likely made with great skill and care, and taken care of through the ages. To play something that is centuries old with a rich history is an amazing experience. This is why, while the Stradivari violins might not necessarily sound better than a modern violin from a master luthier, it's worth millions of dollars more.
As wood ages it decomposes, warps, etc., and the "tonal qualities" of a violin would do the same. Older violins are more "valuable" only because people like you say they are. They don't sound better, they sound objectively worse. And if that wasn't enough, you set off the bullshit bomb raid siren when you mentioned "desiareble" and "warm" sound.
Furthermore, I'd take a factory machined and produced violin over a hand-made one from a master any day. Given comparable materials and design, the machined version will be better. Of course, you had to throw in the "China" boogeyman to bolster your retarded claim by insinuating that it's going to be made of the cheapest materials possible and any manual steps are going to be performed by enslaved children who don't care about quality.
The simple fact is that an old violin was likely made with the exact amount of care as one made today. People made violins to sell. Modern tools, processes, and designs are objectively better than those that are "centuries old", despite any "rich history".
There's value in preserving old things, and old techniques. There's even something to be said for replicating old techniques today. But your post is ridiculous hyperbole, and is objectively wrong. There's no reason a violin should be "worth" millions of dollars simply due to age/brand/rarity. This goes for nearly all antiquities. The market is an extremely small set of collectors - a handful of individuals, museuems and libraries. The fact that they've all hyped themselves up to pay ridiculous prices for things is a joke that has auction houses laughing all the way to the bank.
I find it amusing that the true collectors will laud the rich history and cultural significance of their pieces, but will squirrel them away, coveting the possession of such a thing more than the thing itself. The rest of the market is split between the profiteers and those who actually care about the significance and historical value of things. The profiteers are the ones who hunt through garage sales, storage auctions, etc., and try to sell for profit as well as those who put their pieces up at a museum, "on loan" for money, status, ass kissing (receptive), etc. The people who care about the value of the items are the ones who work at the libraries and museums, and they're in a perpetual state of desperation because their budgets have to include wine and cheese receptions for snobby fucks who think they're doing the museum a favor for lending them a piece for a month for the low low cost of a million of dollars.
Basically, your post does the following: 1: Make bullshit claims about quality. 2: Make valid claims of historical/cultural value ("is centuries old with a rich history"). 3: Immediately slap a price tag on that historical/cultural value ("millions of dollars").
But anyone who actually cares about the historical/cultural value of a piece would share it with others freely.
Large hosts files absolutely slow down lookups. Furthermore, he says he uses 3 different DNS servers, so he's really just getting the security of the intersection of all 3 blacklists. He also claims his hosts file and router prevent malware from dialing home, despite the fact that such malware often has hardcoded IPs and would never need to perform a DNS lookup.
The DNS/HOSTS troll has been around for a while, but the sad thing is it's not a copy-pasta. Each post is actually unique (though similar), so there's some moron begind the AC curtain actually typing that shit out every time. This troll is most easily identified by the formatting. it always has excessive sectioning, bolding, and use of asterisks, hyphens, and parentheticals. The end is always a "beat you over the head with it" moment. In this case it's a link to a Bing search on "how to secure" Windows XP/2000.
Expedience and consistency are closely intertwined. Consistency is already a goal. If the lawyers have to go through the same arguments and the judge has to look up the same laws every time the same issue comes up, it'll take forever. If they want to be quick, they risk sacrificing consistency.
If lawyer A can just say "Dickson vs Twatson, 1994." and the judge can go look it up, you get consistent and expedient results.
The United States is a Common Law country. That means simply that precedent is in fact law. If you don't like the idea of courts establishing law through precedent, then move to a Statutory Law country.
This is just 100% incorrect. The only body that can create laws is Congress. Precedence is a tool for consistency and expedience. Any judge can choose to ignore precedent - it is not law.
Not all theaters charge the same. Some, in Portland, Oregon, charge only $6.00 or so.
Examples are the Clinton, the Hollywood, the Bagdad, and the Laurelhurst.
And some of those also offer real food, not just candy.
Please shop around!
The thing being discussed is the price of two movies at the SAME theater. Barring IMAX/3D premium charges, or matinee/double feature discounts (or the exemption from matinee pricing discounts for new releases), all movie tickets cost the same.
Big Flop $X Huge Success $X Huge Success IMAX 3D $Y Last Month's Chick Flick Matinee: $Z
Across town, X, Y, and Z would be A, B, and C. But X = X and A = A when a properly optimized model would have Big Flop tickets go for less than Huge Success tickets.
A number of factors make this difficult, of course: Ticket prices reflect the cost of the film reel / file transfer, projector, seats, employees, etc., not just the expected earning of the film. Pricing a movie cheaply will discourage people from seeing it. Pricing a movie cheaply will encourage people to buy tickets for it and sneak into a different theater - you'd need extra staff to make sure each person goes into the correct theater.
It's much easier to just send movie off to a budget theatre once it proves to be a dud, and put some other movie on in its place.
We won't go to an optimized model until ticket sales actually shrink to the point of Hollywood struggling to make movies. And that won't happen as long as people eat up any old shit. But if it does happen, one necessary change would be for the cineplexes to have large theaters (hundreds of seats) and small theaters (tens of seats), just to make it cost-efficient and manageable (One block of auditoriums for cheap movies, one block for the successful movies - Gold Tickets (tm) only!). Of course, this already exists in many ways - go across the street to the budget theater, often owned by the same people.
Do most federal judges not hold out on ruling on cases that are currently before SCOTUS?
Who gives a shit? Precedent is not law. Precedent is a tool for consistency. Precedent is a tool to make a judge's job easier, and thus help keep the courts expedient.
EVERY SINGLE CASE is to be judged on its own merits, regardless of whether or not the exact same thing was decided on last Tuesday. Furthermore, any judge can give a ruling that disagrees with a prior ruling by a higher court. When this happens, the losing party will file an appeal to a higher court, and the higher court will read the lower court's decision and look at the issue again.
If the Supreme Court says Pi = 3, and some judge in San Francisco calls that out as the bullshit that it is a month later, then it'll bubble up through the courts again. The Supreme Court is supreme in the sense that it is the highest level of appeal for any given case - the court is NOT an authority of any sort. Courts do not make, validate, or approve laws - they interpret them when conflict arises.
> I posit that there is nothing inherently bad with any speech
Excellent. Let me know your credit card numbers. I'm sure you won't mind if broadcast them to the entire internet - it's just speech. Also, there's no such thing as "imaginary property". You suffer no loss from my telling them to everyone - you are still in possession of the numbers after I do, so this is not theft.
The trick is that free speech means you can say whatever you want and never be punished for it, and you can never have your right to say shit removed, but you can be held responsible and punished for the effects of your speech.
If it's a parked vehicle on a designated "Inductive Charging Spot!(TM)", then the charging installation obviously has a path to ground, and the vehicle can easily have one too. The weight of the vehicle can trigger a small conductor to rise from the charging station and touch the vehicle. The vehicle can have a tail.
It's not rocket science - we have electric vehicles that are grounded and charge while we let children drive them. Bumper cars. We also have automated car washes where people slowly drive their vehicle onto the dip in an M shaped bump before park their vehicle is washed. We also have the age-old hang a tennis ball in the garage so you know when you're in just the right spot so you can close the garage door AND open the fridge.
But it's all pointless because for inductive charging systems, we don't really need a path to ground. The car can communicate with the charging station through any wireless method you want. The charging station then decides how strong of an em field to generate, at what frequency, etc. based on what the car tells it.
For user safety, all you really need to do is keep people with pacemakers away from the thing.
For super extra credit, provide a standard mechanism to allow a car to identify itself though the plug via a cryptographically secure mechanism (similar to smart card). This would facilitate employers, for example, allowing employees to recharge their registered cars for free with a minimum of hassle without opening the recharging up to everyone in the parking lot. It would also allow cardless recharging at commercial recharging stations -- just plug into a charging station that is on the ShellCharge network and your car is instantly recognized and you're billed as appropriate. It would also allow a multifamily dwelling complex to provide chargers in a very transparent fashion to their residents.
Holy shit a good idea on Slashdot. Apartment complexes (and the shitty housing market making them necessary for more and more people) are one of the big things holding back plug-in cars. If people can't plug their car in they're not gonna buy a plug-in car.
You simply need to include a low voltage "handshake" type setup in the charging circuit and then only start the high power transfer once the plug is fully engaged. This shouldn't be too hard to implement for even a mildly clever engineer totally removes that risk.
That "handshake" is called a ground connection. Many plugs have conductors of different lengths. The longer connectors are the ones you want to engage first.
Typically, the ground connectors engage first as you plug the cord in, so the device has a place to shunt current to in case of an OH SHIT moment. Then your other, shorter connectors make contact as you continue pushing the plug in. If something's wrong with the device or those connectors, you already have a path to ground.
I think the SATA power connectors play this game with the +3.3V and +5V lines too. Not sure. Look at the connectors on an SD card. Same principle.
Uh, yeah. You'll have to show me the law that allows that. In addition, I would like to hear of an actual case, or even a plausible scenario, where a corporation could kill a person in such a manner that the corporation escapes the punishment that would be meted out to an individual that has done the same thing.
You don't need a specific law to grant you rights. That's not how rights work. Plenty of corporations have killed people through greed/negligence/malice - see automobiles, drugs, food, tobacco, etc.
Whereas an individual would be charged with murder/manslaughter, corporations are charged with... nothing. They issue a recall / pay some fines and keep doing it.
Each one of those supposed 'corporate rights' comes from the fact that a corporation is nothing more than an association of people, and people do not forfeit any of their rights just because they associate. Those same corporate rights apply to unions, the FSF, the EFF, the KKK, and any other group of people you come up with. So again, what special rights does a corporation have that do not extend from the individuals making up the corporation?
The right to kill people with no threat of imprisonment or death?
One of the sweetest things I ever picked up was the titanium bicycle frame that had just a clear coat on it, let you see the metal striations and all the welds in their raw form, with no filler to smooth any of it out, the flexible, rigid strength was visible.
My flexible, rigid strength is clearly visible in it's raw form, too.
How can you out type Siri's ability to go access your applications and connect to web sites to get stuff done?
e.g. Siri is capable of not only understanding, but executing on requests such as:
"Make a dinner reservation for two near the hotel".
What exactly are you going to type to get this done yourself?!!
On my Nexus One:
1) Open maps. 2) Type "food" or simply select the food/restaurant option. 3) See a bunch of places and pick one based on reviews/whatever (I can be as quick as I want and get cursory information like Siri, or as detailed as I want). 4) Hit the call button, say "Hi, I'd like to make a reservation for 2 at 8. My name's sexconker. Thanks."
It's the same amount of talking, you have actual confirmation of a reservation being placed at the restaurant, and I have tons more information than whatever Siri barks at me, and I can get directions instantly if I want.
Actually, I've been seeing Apple as the new MS. That is, blatantly using their big bucks and near monopolistic positioning to crush competition and force major players in various industries to do things their way at the expense of the consumer (eg, the whole e-books thing). I can't even look at the old 1984 commercial without thinking that Apple has become what they were jealous of back then.
Factually incorrect. Tons of studies have been done, and just as many show adverse effects as positive effects, and overall the differences for both are NOT statistically significant. Beyond that, there's inherent selection bias - people who are circumcised in the US are typically circumcised because their parents believe it to be healthier. The pool of circumcised men has a bias towards health conscious parents that the pool of uncircumcised men doesn't. That bias and that belief doesn't make it true. In fact, if you were to account for that bias you would find that circumcision is actually very harmful.
My favorite contact sport involves slapping my uncut pecker against another man's uncut pecker. Circumcision is mutilation, people. Respect and celebrate the foreskin. Then slap it around like there's no tomorrow!
Prima Donna. Bugger off and look it up. Please don't come back.
"Today the term has become a mainstream word outside opera to often describe a vain, undisciplined, egotistical, obnoxious or temperamental person who finds it difficult to work under direction or as part of a team, and although irritating, cannot be done without."
Companies need to include potential costs from warranties in their balance sheets, i.e. they're a liability that must be offset. As such, reducing the warranties reduces some of their liabilities. With the sales droP because of the supply chain issues, they need to do something to improve their numbers and it sounds like this is a part of it..
This is also why Apple charges for updates. It's because they don't want to list "$X over $Y years" for support and continued development of a product. If they did that, people could look at the investor reports and figure out when the next iThing was going to come out.
Slashdot Mirror
Internet Explorer is a key component of the operating system. People used to sell operating systems and list built-in programs and features as selling points. Then one day cry babies cried that nobody was downloading their shitty media players and other crap and Microsoft couldn't do that anymore with Windows Media Player, IE, etc. Most of MS's advertised features (all their media center and "to the cloud" bullshit) now have to be manually searched for and downloaded. Basically all theWindows Live! crap.
Years ago, people were dumb enough to think that a browser was not a key piece of software for a personal computer. Today, for many people, the browser is the ONLY piece of software. It is unthinkable to ship an operating system today without including a web browser. Hate Microsoft for being forward-thinking, I guess.
And of course, OEMs were "paid" (sold volumes of keys at a discount) to build systems with Windows pre-installed. They weren't paid cash money to add something that people actively didn't want until Norton/RealNetworks/browser toolbars/etc. crawled into their ass.
Besides that, the post you're replying to was about bundling Chrome with software installers, just like how Java asks you to install shit you don't want (with the default being yes). Installer bundling is bad because the software is unwanted (it has to ride on the qualities of the software actually being requested), and most users will not understand why "the internet is different".
The quality of the software being bundled is moot - the issue is the lack of desire/need for the software, and the lack of knowing that you're getting it (most users won't notice the checkbox to disable it, or will be afraid to change any options if they do see it).
You know, OverlyBonchCriticalBonchGuy, people are getting really sick of your astroturfing campaign. Really. At least try to mix in some facts with all the hate and lies.
How about they shouldn't do it in the first place
Shouldn't do what? Use sub-contracters? Are you really that stupid? Google did not do this. A company they contracted the work to contracted the work to yet another company that did. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF
Captcha: agitated. HAHAHA
Google should review the work that it contracts out to make sure it is in line with their standards and guidelines.
In fact, I am certain that they did, and the fact is such practices are within their standards and guidelines (the whole "I make the rules, I don't have to follow them" clause).
The fact is they got caught and are now blaming a scapegoat who did exactly what they contracted with them to do.
I bet you believe Bing copies Google's search results, too.
I don't really see why anything old has an excessive value beyond its use.
Oddly, the type of people who appreciate and create music and art are also the type of people who might value form over function.
For violins in particular, as wood ages its tonal qualities change. Therefore, older violins are more valuable than new violins because they sound better. Well... not necessarily better but they have a more desirable sound and warm.
More importantly, a violin made in a factory in china is going to sound like crap compared to a hand made violin by a skilled luthier, even if it is brand new. An old violin was most likely made with great skill and care, and taken care of through the ages. To play something that is centuries old with a rich history is an amazing experience. This is why, while the Stradivari violins might not necessarily sound better than a modern violin from a master luthier, it's worth millions of dollars more.
As wood ages it decomposes, warps, etc., and the "tonal qualities" of a violin would do the same.
Older violins are more "valuable" only because people like you say they are. They don't sound better, they sound objectively worse.
And if that wasn't enough, you set off the bullshit bomb raid siren when you mentioned "desiareble" and "warm" sound.
Furthermore, I'd take a factory machined and produced violin over a hand-made one from a master any day. Given comparable materials and design, the machined version will be better. Of course, you had to throw in the "China" boogeyman to bolster your retarded claim by insinuating that it's going to be made of the cheapest materials possible and any manual steps are going to be performed by enslaved children who don't care about quality.
The simple fact is that an old violin was likely made with the exact amount of care as one made today. People made violins to sell.
Modern tools, processes, and designs are objectively better than those that are "centuries old", despite any "rich history".
There's value in preserving old things, and old techniques. There's even something to be said for replicating old techniques today.
But your post is ridiculous hyperbole, and is objectively wrong. There's no reason a violin should be "worth" millions of dollars simply due to age/brand/rarity. This goes for nearly all antiquities. The market is an extremely small set of collectors - a handful of individuals, museuems and libraries. The fact that they've all hyped themselves up to pay ridiculous prices for things is a joke that has auction houses laughing all the way to the bank.
I find it amusing that the true collectors will laud the rich history and cultural significance of their pieces, but will squirrel them away, coveting the possession of such a thing more than the thing itself. The rest of the market is split between the profiteers and those who actually care about the significance and historical value of things. The profiteers are the ones who hunt through garage sales, storage auctions, etc., and try to sell for profit as well as those who put their pieces up at a museum, "on loan" for money, status, ass kissing (receptive), etc.
The people who care about the value of the items are the ones who work at the libraries and museums, and they're in a perpetual state of desperation because their budgets have to include wine and cheese receptions for snobby fucks who think they're doing the museum a favor for lending them a piece for a month for the low low cost of a million of dollars.
Basically, your post does the following:
1: Make bullshit claims about quality.
2: Make valid claims of historical/cultural value ("is centuries old with a rich history").
3: Immediately slap a price tag on that historical/cultural value ("millions of dollars").
But anyone who actually cares about the historical/cultural value of a piece would share it with others freely.
Large hosts files absolutely slow down lookups.
Furthermore, he says he uses 3 different DNS servers, so he's really just getting the security of the intersection of all 3 blacklists.
He also claims his hosts file and router prevent malware from dialing home, despite the fact that such malware often has hardcoded IPs and would never need to perform a DNS lookup.
The DNS/HOSTS troll has been around for a while, but the sad thing is it's not a copy-pasta. Each post is actually unique (though similar), so there's some moron begind the AC curtain actually typing that shit out every time. This troll is most easily identified by the formatting. it always has excessive sectioning, bolding, and use of asterisks, hyphens, and parentheticals. The end is always a "beat you over the head with it" moment. In this case it's a link to a Bing search on "how to secure" Windows XP/2000.
Basically, don't feed the trolls.
Expedience and consistency are closely intertwined.
Consistency is already a goal. If the lawyers have to go through the same arguments and the judge has to look up the same laws every time the same issue comes up, it'll take forever. If they want to be quick, they risk sacrificing consistency.
If lawyer A can just say "Dickson vs Twatson, 1994." and the judge can go look it up, you get consistent and expedient results.
The United States is a Common Law country. That means simply that precedent is in fact law. If you don't like the idea of courts establishing law through precedent, then move to a Statutory Law country.
This is just 100% incorrect. The only body that can create laws is Congress.
Precedence is a tool for consistency and expedience. Any judge can choose to ignore precedent - it is not law.
Folks:
Not all theaters charge the same. Some, in Portland, Oregon, charge only $6.00 or so.
Examples are the Clinton, the Hollywood, the Bagdad, and the Laurelhurst.
And some of those also offer real food, not just candy.
Please shop around!
The thing being discussed is the price of two movies at the SAME theater.
Barring IMAX/3D premium charges, or matinee/double feature discounts (or the exemption from matinee pricing discounts for new releases), all movie tickets cost the same.
Big Flop $X
Huge Success $X
Huge Success IMAX 3D $Y
Last Month's Chick Flick Matinee: $Z
Across town, X, Y, and Z would be A, B, and C. But X = X and A = A when a properly optimized model would have Big Flop tickets go for less than Huge Success tickets.
A number of factors make this difficult, of course:
Ticket prices reflect the cost of the film reel / file transfer, projector, seats, employees, etc., not just the expected earning of the film.
Pricing a movie cheaply will discourage people from seeing it.
Pricing a movie cheaply will encourage people to buy tickets for it and sneak into a different theater - you'd need extra staff to make sure each person goes into the correct theater.
It's much easier to just send movie off to a budget theatre once it proves to be a dud, and put some other movie on in its place.
We won't go to an optimized model until ticket sales actually shrink to the point of Hollywood struggling to make movies.
And that won't happen as long as people eat up any old shit. But if it does happen, one necessary change would be for the cineplexes to have large theaters (hundreds of seats) and small theaters (tens of seats), just to make it cost-efficient and manageable (One block of auditoriums for cheap movies, one block for the successful movies - Gold Tickets (tm) only!). Of course, this already exists in many ways - go across the street to the budget theater, often owned by the same people.
But when DNF was supposed to come out, $15 could fill your gas tank AND have enough left over for a pack of cigarettes.
I think you meant pack of gum.
The Duke's been out of gum for a long time.
But, what is the precedent for this type thing?
Do most federal judges not hold out on ruling on cases that are currently before SCOTUS?
Who gives a shit?
Precedent is not law.
Precedent is a tool for consistency. Precedent is a tool to make a judge's job easier, and thus help keep the courts expedient.
EVERY SINGLE CASE is to be judged on its own merits, regardless of whether or not the exact same thing was decided on last Tuesday.
Furthermore, any judge can give a ruling that disagrees with a prior ruling by a higher court. When this happens, the losing party will file an appeal to a higher court, and the higher court will read the lower court's decision and look at the issue again.
If the Supreme Court says Pi = 3, and some judge in San Francisco calls that out as the bullshit that it is a month later, then it'll bubble up through the courts again.
The Supreme Court is supreme in the sense that it is the highest level of appeal for any given case - the court is NOT an authority of any sort. Courts do not make, validate, or approve laws - they interpret them when conflict arises.
> I posit that there is nothing inherently bad with any speech
Excellent. Let me know your credit card numbers. I'm sure you won't mind if broadcast them to the entire internet - it's just speech. Also, there's no such thing as "imaginary property". You suffer no loss from my telling them to everyone - you are still in possession of the numbers after I do, so this is not theft.
The trick is that free speech means you can say whatever you want and never be punished for it, and you can never have your right to say shit removed, but you can be held responsible and punished for the effects of your speech.
If it is inductive, there is no ground.
If it's a parked vehicle on a designated "Inductive Charging Spot!(TM)", then the charging installation obviously has a path to ground, and the vehicle can easily have one too. The weight of the vehicle can trigger a small conductor to rise from the charging station and touch the vehicle. The vehicle can have a tail.
It's not rocket science - we have electric vehicles that are grounded and charge while we let children drive them. Bumper cars.
We also have automated car washes where people slowly drive their vehicle onto the dip in an M shaped bump before park their vehicle is washed.
We also have the age-old hang a tennis ball in the garage so you know when you're in just the right spot so you can close the garage door AND open the fridge.
But it's all pointless because for inductive charging systems, we don't really need a path to ground. The car can communicate with the charging station through any wireless method you want. The charging station then decides how strong of an em field to generate, at what frequency, etc. based on what the car tells it.
For user safety, all you really need to do is keep people with pacemakers away from the thing.
For super extra credit, provide a standard mechanism to allow a car to identify itself though the plug via a cryptographically secure mechanism (similar to smart card). This would facilitate employers, for example, allowing employees to recharge their registered cars for free with a minimum of hassle without opening the recharging up to everyone in the parking lot. It would also allow cardless recharging at commercial recharging stations -- just plug into a charging station that is on the ShellCharge network and your car is instantly recognized and you're billed as appropriate. It would also allow a multifamily dwelling complex to provide chargers in a very transparent fashion to their residents.
Holy shit a good idea on Slashdot.
Apartment complexes (and the shitty housing market making them necessary for more and more people) are one of the big things holding back plug-in cars.
If people can't plug their car in they're not gonna buy a plug-in car.
You simply need to include a low voltage "handshake" type setup in the charging circuit and then only start the high power transfer once the plug is fully engaged. This shouldn't be too hard to implement for even a mildly clever engineer totally removes that risk.
That "handshake" is called a ground connection.
Many plugs have conductors of different lengths. The longer connectors are the ones you want to engage first.
Typically, the ground connectors engage first as you plug the cord in, so the device has a place to shunt current to in case of an OH SHIT moment.
Then your other, shorter connectors make contact as you continue pushing the plug in. If something's wrong with the device or those connectors, you already have a path to ground.
I think the SATA power connectors play this game with the +3.3V and +5V lines too. Not sure.
Look at the connectors on an SD card. Same principle.
Uh, yeah. You'll have to show me the law that allows that. In addition, I would like to hear of an actual case, or even a plausible scenario, where a corporation could kill a person in such a manner that the corporation escapes the punishment that would be meted out to an individual that has done the same thing.
You don't need a specific law to grant you rights. That's not how rights work.
Plenty of corporations have killed people through greed/negligence/malice - see automobiles, drugs, food, tobacco, etc.
Whereas an individual would be charged with murder/manslaughter, corporations are charged with... nothing. They issue a recall / pay some fines and keep doing it.
Each one of those supposed 'corporate rights' comes from the fact that a corporation is nothing more than an association of people, and people do not forfeit any of their rights just because they associate. Those same corporate rights apply to unions, the FSF, the EFF, the KKK, and any other group of people you come up with. So again, what special rights does a corporation have that do not extend from the individuals making up the corporation?
The right to kill people with no threat of imprisonment or death?
One of the sweetest things I ever picked up was the titanium bicycle frame that had just a clear coat on it, let you see the metal striations and all the welds in their raw form, with no filler to smooth any of it out, the flexible, rigid strength was visible.
My flexible, rigid strength is clearly visible in it's raw form, too.
How can you out type Siri's ability to go access your applications and connect to web sites to get stuff done?
e.g. Siri is capable of not only understanding, but executing on requests such as:
"Make a dinner reservation for two near the hotel".
What exactly are you going to type to get this done yourself?!!
On my Nexus One:
1) Open maps.
2) Type "food" or simply select the food/restaurant option.
3) See a bunch of places and pick one based on reviews/whatever (I can be as quick as I want and get cursory information like Siri, or as detailed as I want).
4) Hit the call button, say "Hi, I'd like to make a reservation for 2 at 8. My name's sexconker. Thanks."
It's the same amount of talking, you have actual confirmation of a reservation being placed at the restaurant, and I have tons more information than whatever Siri barks at me, and I can get directions instantly if I want.
Actually, I've been seeing Apple as the new MS. That is, blatantly using their big bucks and near monopolistic positioning to crush competition and force major players in various industries to do things their way at the expense of the consumer (eg, the whole e-books thing). I can't even look at the old 1984 commercial without thinking that Apple has become what they were jealous of back then.
Fixed.
Factually incorrect. Tons of studies have been done, and just as many show adverse effects as positive effects, and overall the differences for both are NOT statistically significant. Beyond that, there's inherent selection bias - people who are circumcised in the US are typically circumcised because their parents believe it to be healthier. The pool of circumcised men has a bias towards health conscious parents that the pool of uncircumcised men doesn't. That bias and that belief doesn't make it true. In fact, if you were to account for that bias you would find that circumcision is actually very harmful.
But keep on believin'!
Pssst, you forgot to log out.
Pssst, no I didn't.
helmet-to-helmet
My favorite contact sport involves slapping my uncut pecker against another man's uncut pecker.
Circumcision is mutilation, people. Respect and celebrate the foreskin. Then slap it around like there's no tomorrow!
Prima Donna. Bugger off and look it up.
Please don't come back.
"Today the term has become a mainstream word outside opera to often describe a vain, undisciplined, egotistical, obnoxious or temperamental person who finds it difficult to work under direction or as part of a team, and although irritating, cannot be done without."
Your own link shows that he used it correctly.
Yes you get paid, but you're throwing a ball around a field, get over yourselves
It's possible to trivialize any career if you try. I bet you get paid for simply pushing bits around, so get over yourself.
Go ahead and try to trivialize a surgeon, firefighter, or coast guard rescue swimmer without looking like a moron.
Somethings are best left to die. The world is moving on with other, more cost effective promising technology.
Except that we're not.
Space just isn't in the budget.
Companies need to include potential costs from warranties in their balance sheets, i.e. they're a liability that must be offset. As such, reducing the warranties reduces some of their liabilities. With the sales droP because of the supply chain issues, they need to do something to improve their numbers and it sounds like this is a part of it..
This is also why Apple charges for updates.
It's because they don't want to list "$X over $Y years" for support and continued development of a product. If they did that, people could look at the investor reports and figure out when the next iThing was going to come out.