First of all remember a RFID tag is useless without a reader. No reader in range, no ID. Second, the scan range is somewhat limited. It's going to be difficult to scan the tags from anywhere other than inside the vehicle when it's moving.
This has some advantages for the consumer beyond the inventory and supply chain management improvements for Michelin.
For one it will be easier to spot counterfit Michelin tires. Before you scoff be aware this is a big problem for Michelin and some other high end tire makers. It is not uncommon to buy a brand name tire and get a phony tire made overseas or a re-tread sold as new.
Another application would be to embed multiple tags to indicate tire wear. When certain tags wear away you will know the tire needs to be replaced.
Imaging the RFID tags were combined with pressure and temprature gauges. This would allow you to know this from inside the car while it was moving.
I doubt the "Man" is going to go around installing RFID readers everywhere just because one tire maker with a small slice of the market starts putting tags in their tires. Besides all you get when you get when you read a RFID tag is a number. A unique number to be sure, but without a lookup to the various supply chain databases a fairly meaningless number.
Where the heck do you live? At least in my state of the US the vehicle inspectors will pass just about anything. You just have to be within the emissions limits, not have an exhaust leak, excessively loud exhaust, and not have anything obvious like a supercharger or nitrous system.
Even if the inspector checks the engine VIN against the frame you can usually get away with saying you had to replace the old one.
I doubt if any of the Hy-wire technology makes it into production vehicles it will cost anywhere near what the components on this car cost.
Remember this is custom prototype vehicle with a lot of new stuff on it. Much of it was probably built by hand. If you were going to make 100,000 of them the costs would come WAY down.
I will agree with you that the General's styling and design has improved by leaps and bounds recently. I will also agree that nobody builds better full-size SUVs, trucks, and vans than the big three. Personally I would not buy a big-three passenger or sports car with the possible exception of some Dodge and Chrysler models. Note I'm refering to the "traditional" big-three brands, not the overseas makers they have bought or merged with.
While the image of Cadillac has improved much recently I don't think it or Lincon are in the same class as Saab, Jaguar, BMW, or Mercedes.
While the C-5 is a fine car it also not really in the same class as a 911, Viper, NSX, or Ferrari.
...but by whitey casper milquetoast GM itself, the inventor of the minivan I remind you.
Not sure who "invented" the minivan but Chrysler is credited with popularizing them. GM's answer to the Voyager for a number of years was the rather lame Astro. VW's microbus pre-dates the modern minivan by a couple of decades but it wasn't exactly being bought by suburban soccer moms.
I sense there are 2 types of people who know about and are buying Tivo. One are the media geeks, either people in the media industry or videophile types. The other type are technology geeks, either computer professionals or hardcore enthusiasts. The people who have Tivos right now are the same sort of people who had DirecTV 5 or 6 years ago.
One thing that might help would be to send a free Tivo to the hosts of the top 10 TV and radio national talk shows and the host of the top morning drivetime radio program in the top 20 media markets. If Leno or Howard Stern start raving about their Tivos it would do wonders for product awareness.
I'm really amazed at the number of replies that seem to support the MPAA view of sharing recorded content. What happened to all of the F*CK the MPAA replies along with "I'll do what the hell I want with my electronics and content I buy/record its not my problem that your business model is broken"
The fact is you can do this with old-fashioned VCR. I used a friend's collection of taped Babylon 5 episodes to catch up when I started watching. I also used his tapes to watch season 5 since I didn't have cable at the time. I think there clearly is a desire on the part of the consumer to share shows they record with their PVRs even if some don't see this as legitimate.
The questions are: Is sharing shows recorded with a PVR copyright infringement? If it is infringement who is liable for the infringement? The person recording the show? The manufacturer of the device? The network over which the distribution occurs? Is there a solution that fairly balances everyone's intrests? Without requiring some draconian DRM scheme?
Powell said he intended to use the TiVo machine to record TV shows to play on other television sets in his home, and even suggested that he might share recordings with his sister if she were to miss a favorite show.
"I'd like to move it to other TVs," he said of his digitally recorded programming. A number of products already allow that.
He says nothing about the DMCA or copyrights.
I suspect Mr. Powell is aware of copyright law. On the other hand to have the FCC chairman give an enthusiastic endorsement of PVRs and indicate a desire to share recorded material with others is a pretty major coup. I'm sure Mr. Valenti fuming right now.
Except for the fact that it has nothing to do with the DMCA. Distributing copies of home recordings is a violation of plain old copyright law, law which has been on the books since 1790.
The 1790 law is mostly irrelivant today except it forms a basis for today's law. US copyright law underwent a major revision in 1976 to conform with the Bern convention. The 1976 law, the DMCA, and several "minor" amendments like the HRRA (Home Recording Rights Act) and the Bono act form the basis of most of current US law.
I believe acts like taping a show and giving the tape to a friend or relative are allowed by the HRRA. Its unclear if this is allowed if there is no physical tape. I'm unsure what the DMCA has to say about it as well.
Let me add my perspective as someone who has worked in IT for a computer security company.
Nothing in any of the products announced so far precludes the TPM from being a removable smart card. Now there are problems with the TPM being a removable part for some security purposes so ideally the BIOS should support a combination of a TPM on the motheboard and a TPM in the form of a smart card.
Now I know some of you are wondering what the use of this beyond DRM could possibly be. Consider the following scenarios:
Client desktop lockdown. You can prevent users from booting an unauthorized OS, installing unauthorized software, provide more secure authentication mechanisms, etc. This is presuming the IT department is able to set what is authorized rather than the vendor.
Enhanced server security. You can provide a VERY trustworthy CA or kerberos server. You could use this as a very secure form of tripwire as well. Checksum doesn't match? The program doesn't even run. Another use would be ensuring all clients are authorized this would be very useful with things like financial or HR databases. Again this is assuming the IT department has some say in what is authorized.
First of all there is no Federal requirment in the US that auto mechanics be licensed. Where this is regulated it is done by states, counties, and cities.
Second I don't belive it is all that common for local or state government to require any certification for auto mechanics. Many mechanics are ASE certified but they are certified for the same reasons someone might choose to get an A+ or MCSE.
I do know some places require the shop to be licensed beyond a simple business license. These regulations have to do with environmental, fire, or life safety issues. This is for things like underground storage tanks, power lifts, welding, working on A/C systems, or performing emissions work.
When (if?) mankind finally returns to the moon, it will most likely be via a private company in some sort of for-profit venture. Unless there is some sort of new political goal to be gained, governments will not (and should not, IMHO) be part of the picture. Its just too damn expensive for taxpayers to stomach.
The Chinese say they will land on the Moon by 2010. They are going to do their first manned launch in 2003 2 years ahead of schedule. I don't doubt they are serious about going to the Moon.
Of course 2 things help the Chinese, first they seem to be able to do things for around 1/25th the cost of NASA, second they don't really have to worry what their taxpayers think.
Actually, the primary difference between the 30s and now are cheap, unbelievably addicting drugs. There is more than enough shelter beds and food for the homeless -- they choose to live on the street.
I'll agree with you on drugs being part of the problem.
I have no idea what city you are in but most large urban areas I'm familiar with most certainly do not have enough shelter beds.
The Chinese are expected to do their first manned launch sometime in 2003.
Beyond that their plans are VERY ambitious. They plan their own space station, Moon landing by 2010, Lunar reasearch station, Mars landing, and Martian reasearch station.
Basicly they are going to follow all of the old dreams. I hope to hell this manages to start a new space race. The competition might actually get us off the planet in a big way.
The problem is the Space Shuttle is anything but cheap. A Space Shuttle launch costs $600 Million, a Russian Soyuz launch is around $20 Million. The estimated cost of the Chinese launches is around the same as the Russians.
There are cheap ways to get people in orbit, there are cheap ways to get large payloads into orbit, unfortunately the Space Shuttle is nither.
As far as privacy, the records can be protected by increasing the accountability of the government.
What planet have you been living on? The trend if anything has been less accountability for government. People are targeted for questioning the status quo. Public officials try to find all sorts of loopholes arount open records and open meeting laws. Best not to stand out too much, best to just try to get along. Let the "wise" and the police decide what is best. Besides what we do is only for your protection, its for "homeland security", it fights crime, its for the children, its too complicated to understand anyway. Move along, nothing to see here.
There's also ALOT less Air Ambulances than there are ground Ambulances, where I am there is just 1 Air Ambulance that serves a rather large area (probably 1000+ Ground Ambulances).
Quite true. Where I am (Western Washington) there are 5 helicopters and 2 lear jets providing air ambulance services.
Seattle has a level 1 trauma center and a number of other specialized medical services that serve a large region including the entire State of Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Western Canada.
I used to work in view of the helipads at the trama center and I was amazed at how frequently helicopters took off and landed. It seemed like one at least every hour on a "slow" day.
Speculation about ambulance crews using crash data is just hype - no ambulance is equipped to do that, nor would I want an EMT to spend time decoding the crash data instead of, say, saving my life. The article repeatedly suggests that crash data would be used to enhance safety, without ever specifying how that is supposed to occur.
I doubt ambulance crews would be the ones to carry equipment to read crash data. On the other hand I could imagine either the Police or insurance investigators having the equipment. I've yet to see an accident where an ambulance was called that the police didn't show up and take a report as well.
Its fairly obvious how such devices would "improve safety". You are much more likely to not break traffic laws if you know Big Brother is watching your driving habits. I could see insurance companies requiring a data download when you renew your insurance. Ever exceed a certain speed? You pay more. Rev your engine a lot? You pay more. Slam on the brakes frequently? You pay more. Ever turn without using turn signals? You pay more.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all remember a RFID tag is useless without a reader. No reader in range, no ID. Second, the scan range is somewhat limited. It's going to be difficult to scan the tags from anywhere other than inside the vehicle when it's moving.
This has some advantages for the consumer beyond the inventory and supply chain management improvements for Michelin.
For one it will be easier to spot counterfit Michelin tires. Before you scoff be aware this is a big problem for Michelin and some other high end tire makers. It is not uncommon to buy a brand name tire and get a phony tire made overseas or a re-tread sold as new.
Another application would be to embed multiple tags to indicate tire wear. When certain tags wear away you will know the tire needs to be replaced.
Imaging the RFID tags were combined with pressure and temprature gauges. This would allow you to know this from inside the car while it was moving.
I doubt the "Man" is going to go around installing RFID readers everywhere just because one tire maker with a small slice of the market starts putting tags in their tires. Besides all you get when you get when you read a RFID tag is a number. A unique number to be sure, but without a lookup to the various supply chain databases a fairly meaningless number.
Where the heck do you live? At least in my state of the US the vehicle inspectors will pass just about anything. You just have to be within the emissions limits, not have an exhaust leak, excessively loud exhaust, and not have anything obvious like a supercharger or nitrous system.
Even if the inspector checks the engine VIN against the frame you can usually get away with saying you had to replace the old one.
I doubt if any of the Hy-wire technology makes it into production vehicles it will cost anywhere near what the components on this car cost.
Remember this is custom prototype vehicle with a lot of new stuff on it. Much of it was probably built by hand. If you were going to make 100,000 of them the costs would come WAY down.
I would like to see some real human factors research go into the driving interface.
It would be interesting to see what is optimal if you remove the familiarity requirement.
Personaly I think a cycle like interface would be cool.
I will agree with you that the General's styling and design has improved by leaps and bounds recently. I will also agree that nobody builds better full-size SUVs, trucks, and vans than the big three. Personally I would not buy a big-three passenger or sports car with the possible exception of some Dodge and Chrysler models. Note I'm refering to the "traditional" big-three brands, not the overseas makers they have bought or merged with.
While the image of Cadillac has improved much recently I don't think it or Lincon are in the same class as Saab, Jaguar, BMW, or Mercedes.
While the C-5 is a fine car it also not really in the same class as a 911, Viper, NSX, or Ferrari.
Not sure who "invented" the minivan but Chrysler is credited with popularizing them. GM's answer to the Voyager for a number of years was the rather lame Astro. VW's microbus pre-dates the modern minivan by a couple of decades but it wasn't exactly being bought by suburban soccer moms.
If M$ was stupid enough to try that they would probably find themselves facing IBM's massive patent portfolio.
Out of court settlements. Or nuclear blackmail.
I wonder if IBM would be willing to use the same tactic if Microsoft tries to attack Linux for patent infringement.
I sense there are 2 types of people who know about and are buying Tivo. One are the media geeks, either people in the media industry or videophile types. The other type are technology geeks, either computer professionals or hardcore enthusiasts. The people who have Tivos right now are the same sort of people who had DirecTV 5 or 6 years ago.
One thing that might help would be to send a free Tivo to the hosts of the top 10 TV and radio national talk shows and the host of the top morning drivetime radio program in the top 20 media markets. If Leno or Howard Stern start raving about their Tivos it would do wonders for product awareness.
NBC is a VERY small segment of GE.
Most likely the GE holding in Tivo is due to GE Capital Services. They ARE an insurance company, investment bank, and mutual fund company.
I'm really amazed at the number of replies that seem to support the MPAA view of sharing recorded content. What happened to all of the F*CK the MPAA replies along with "I'll do what the hell I want with my electronics and content I buy/record its not my problem that your business model is broken"
The fact is you can do this with old-fashioned VCR. I used a friend's collection of taped Babylon 5 episodes to catch up when I started watching. I also used his tapes to watch season 5 since I didn't have cable at the time. I think there clearly is a desire on the part of the consumer to share shows they record with their PVRs even if some don't see this as legitimate.
The questions are: Is sharing shows recorded with a PVR copyright infringement? If it is infringement who is liable for the infringement? The person recording the show? The manufacturer of the device? The network over which the distribution occurs? Is there a solution that fairly balances everyone's intrests? Without requiring some draconian DRM scheme?
From the article:
...
Powell said he intended to use the TiVo machine to record TV shows to play on other television sets in his home, and even suggested that he might share recordings with his sister if she were to miss a favorite show.
"I'd like to move it to other TVs," he said of his digitally recorded programming. A number of products already allow that.
He says nothing about the DMCA or copyrights.
I suspect Mr. Powell is aware of copyright law. On the other hand to have the FCC chairman give an enthusiastic endorsement of PVRs and indicate a desire to share recorded material with others is a pretty major coup. I'm sure Mr. Valenti fuming right now.
Now to get Sen. McCain using a PVR as well
Except for the fact that it has nothing to do with the DMCA. Distributing copies of home recordings is a violation of plain old copyright law, law which has been on the books since 1790.
The 1790 law is mostly irrelivant today except it forms a basis for today's law. US copyright law underwent a major revision in 1976 to conform with the Bern convention. The 1976 law, the DMCA, and several "minor" amendments like the HRRA (Home Recording Rights Act) and the Bono act form the basis of most of current US law.
I believe acts like taping a show and giving the tape to a friend or relative are allowed by the HRRA. Its unclear if this is allowed if there is no physical tape. I'm unsure what the DMCA has to say about it as well.
The bill in congress would have required steep fees on all VCRs and blank tapes in order to pay the MPAA for all of the "stolen" content.
I believe at the time the MPAA was hoping the fees would kill the VCR.
Let me add my perspective as someone who has worked in IT for a computer security company.
Nothing in any of the products announced so far precludes the TPM from being a removable smart card. Now there are problems with the TPM being a removable part for some security purposes so ideally the BIOS should support a combination of a TPM on the motheboard and a TPM in the form of a smart card.
Now I know some of you are wondering what the use of this beyond DRM could possibly be. Consider the following scenarios:
Client desktop lockdown. You can prevent users from booting an unauthorized OS, installing unauthorized software, provide more secure authentication mechanisms, etc. This is presuming the IT department is able to set what is authorized rather than the vendor.
Enhanced server security. You can provide a VERY trustworthy CA or kerberos server. You could use this as a very secure form of tripwire as well. Checksum doesn't match? The program doesn't even run. Another use would be ensuring all clients are authorized this would be very useful with things like financial or HR databases. Again this is assuming the IT department has some say in what is authorized.
First of all there is no Federal requirment in the US that auto mechanics be licensed. Where this is regulated it is done by states, counties, and cities.
Second I don't belive it is all that common for local or state government to require any certification for auto mechanics. Many mechanics are ASE certified but they are certified for the same reasons someone might choose to get an A+ or MCSE.
I do know some places require the shop to be licensed beyond a simple business license. These regulations have to do with environmental, fire, or life safety issues. This is for things like underground storage tanks, power lifts, welding, working on A/C systems, or performing emissions work.
When (if?) mankind finally returns to the moon, it will most likely be via a private company in some sort of for-profit venture. Unless there is some sort of new political goal to be gained, governments will not (and should not, IMHO) be part of the picture. Its just too damn expensive for taxpayers to stomach.
The Chinese say they will land on the Moon by 2010. They are going to do their first manned launch in 2003 2 years ahead of schedule. I don't doubt they are serious about going to the Moon.
Of course 2 things help the Chinese, first they seem to be able to do things for around 1/25th the cost of NASA, second they don't really have to worry what their taxpayers think.
Actually, the primary difference between the 30s and now are cheap, unbelievably addicting drugs. There is more than enough shelter beds and food for the homeless -- they choose to live on the street.
I'll agree with you on drugs being part of the problem.
I have no idea what city you are in but most large urban areas I'm familiar with most certainly do not have enough shelter beds.
The Chinese are expected to do their first manned launch sometime in 2003.
Beyond that their plans are VERY ambitious. They plan their own space station, Moon landing by 2010, Lunar reasearch station, Mars landing, and Martian reasearch station.
Basicly they are going to follow all of the old dreams. I hope to hell this manages to start a new space race. The competition might actually get us off the planet in a big way.
The problem is the Space Shuttle is anything but cheap. A Space Shuttle launch costs $600 Million, a Russian Soyuz launch is around $20 Million. The estimated cost of the Chinese launches is around the same as the Russians.
There are cheap ways to get people in orbit, there are cheap ways to get large payloads into orbit, unfortunately the Space Shuttle is nither.
Don't forget Eugene, Portland's granola munching, radical, little brother.
As far as privacy, the records can be protected by increasing the accountability of the government.
What planet have you been living on? The trend if anything has been less accountability for government. People are targeted for questioning the status quo. Public officials try to find all sorts of loopholes arount open records and open meeting laws. Best not to stand out too much, best to just try to get along. Let the "wise" and the police decide what is best. Besides what we do is only for your protection, its for "homeland security", it fights crime, its for the children, its too complicated to understand anyway. Move along, nothing to see here.
There's also ALOT less Air Ambulances than there are ground Ambulances, where I am there is just 1 Air Ambulance that serves a rather large area (probably 1000+ Ground Ambulances).
Quite true. Where I am (Western Washington) there are 5 helicopters and 2 lear jets providing air ambulance services.
Seattle has a level 1 trauma center and a number of other specialized medical services that serve a large region including the entire State of Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Western Canada.
I used to work in view of the helipads at the trama center and I was amazed at how frequently helicopters took off and landed. It seemed like one at least every hour on a "slow" day.
Speculation about ambulance crews using crash data is just hype - no ambulance is equipped to do that, nor would I want an EMT to spend time decoding the crash data instead of, say, saving my life. The article repeatedly suggests that crash data would be used to enhance safety, without ever specifying how that is supposed to occur.
I doubt ambulance crews would be the ones to carry equipment to read crash data. On the other hand I could imagine either the Police or insurance investigators having the equipment. I've yet to see an accident where an ambulance was called that the police didn't show up and take a report as well.
Its fairly obvious how such devices would "improve safety". You are much more likely to not break traffic laws if you know Big Brother is watching your driving habits. I could see insurance companies requiring a data download when you renew your insurance. Ever exceed a certain speed? You pay more. Rev your engine a lot? You pay more. Slam on the brakes frequently? You pay more. Ever turn without using turn signals? You pay more.