You know just because they have the same stuff in them does not mean the design is obviously faulty like this device. I would consider any fire on a jet to be a very serious situation and its not worth the risk so somebody can check facebook.
So you're proposing banning all phones from all planes (in both checked bags and carry-on)?
As I understand it, the recall effot on the Note 7 has been for the cell service providers to tell their customers to return their phones to the store they bought them from, and then exchange it for a new Note 7 without the problem battery in it. How do they plan on telling ones that have undergone the recall (and thus are safe) from those that haven't, even months later when the recall is "over"?
The same way other recalls do it -- serial numbers that indicate which phones have the bad battery.
Your house can be disconnected from the mains at a safe distance. Disconnecting the batteries in an electric car on fire - not so easy.
Unless your house has solar + battery backup. Many have an off-switch for emergency responders (sometimes required by law), but you still need to approach the house to reach it.
No it's not. It's the usual The Guardian clickbait that makes it sound like the sky is falling.
This isn't some large-scale assault on bees. Those 2,5 million (big scary number) are the bees of a single beekeper who from the sound of other articles either wasn't in some registry or didn't get informed by accident.
But who notifies the millions of natural bees that don't have friendly beekeeper to register them?
Even if I did share my contact list or SMS messages with the car, what are rental car clerks going to do with my contacts or a text message from my sister that reads "When are you going to be here?"?
Who says it will be the rental company employees doing the mining?
If I was a nefarious person I would rental high end cars from major airports for a day and see if any business people used the car and left any juicy details in the info system that would be very useful for social engineering attacks.
Would you really? You'd spend $125 a pop just on the off chance you'd find something valuable? And since you don't want it tracked back to you, you'd use a stolen identity and credit card each time?
I said "rental car clerks" because they are the ones that have free access to every single car and it doesn't make sense to rent a car for an entire day for a 30 second operation.
Even if I did share my contact list or SMS messages with the car, what are rental car clerks going to do with my contacts or a text message from my sister that reads "When are you going to be here?"?
Thousands of car rental employees mining car entertainment systems for data seems like an awfully inefficient way for hackers to harvest data when it's far easier to do the same thing by releasing a trojan horse app to collect the data.
You nerds are getting what you deserve, with your desire to put electronics and computers in everything. Poetic justice, I must say.
Except it's not the nerds that have problems with this -- the nerds already know that they shouldn't plug (or sync) their phone into untrusted systems.
So having a news story about an unknown startup is about as dumb as interviewing the guy next to you on the bus. Sure, it might turn out to be interesting but chances are it's a waste of time.
The story wasn't about the startup itself or their product, but about the way they defrauded their employees.
Why do people stay at a company if it has missed a payday? The day my employer misses a payday, I go home and don't come back until they come up with a paycheck (if at all, since while I'm home I look for another job immediately). Do people stay out of loyalty or naiveté or what?
Because they realize that working at a startup takes a certain amount of sacrifice, I stayed at a startup when they couldn't make payroll for 3 weeks, they admitted it beforehand, and told us that we were free to take unpaid leave during that period if we wanted to, or we could work and eventually get paid. The CEO offered personal loans with his own money to anyone that had rent, mortgage or other obligation coming up. Most of the employees continued working, we got paid in 3 weeks as promised with a 25% bonus. Those that took the unpaid leave came back and returned to their jobs.
Even in a hot job market like Silicon Valley, it takes more than a few weeks to line up a *good* job, so it's worth taking a bit of risk if you're otherwise happy with the company and the product you're working on.
Well, if you are required to work at the company to stay in the country...
Not sure if you are being serious, but: if your company isn't paying you, then you are already in violation of your H1 visa.
Which is all the more reason to stay when the money they owe you is right around the corner, just need to wait for that wire transfer to come through, any day now.
Obviously she must be horrible at her job as Marketing Director, and thus was fired with cause.../s
Seriously though, I've never heard of them. What's the point of a job site nobody knows about?
Every company starts as an unknown. You could have said the same thing about Google in 1998. "'Google??' what kind of name is that? Why do they even exist when we have AltaVista and Excite!?"
Of course, few startups advance to become a household name, most fail or are acquired and are forgotten.
You are assuming that they would be scientifically and technologically so far beyond us that we would seem like ants to them, but that at the same time they would have morals as backwards as ours. I would rather expect (hope?) that any civilisation old enough to reach a Kardashev II stage without obliterating themselves or their ecosystem, would also have developed a moral system abolishing specism. In their eyes sentient beings of any kind would have the same right to exist and develop in their natural environment. If anything these aliens could choose to intervene and stop our needless exploitation and enslaving of other species (a.k.a. livestock farming).
Why would you think such a thing? Is there some competitive advantage to be altruistic towards once's neighbors? Maybe a society that has a philosophy of killing its neighbors is the one to survive?
Unlike earth where cooperating tribesmen help perpetuate the species as a whole even if they don't improve their own tribe's survival, there's not a whole lot of incentive for a spacefaring society to foster the growth of up and coming competitors - much easier to nip them in the bud while still technologically undeveloped. Maybe poke at them for a while for amusement, because why not?
I don't see the problem -- Genesis and Equus are just as opaque as G80 and G90, and I hadn't heard of any of those model until reading this article.
Most consumers only have one or two cars and only shop for a new car ever 5 -10 years, so they need to learn the current models when they shop, and they can learn alphanumeric models just as easy as unique model names. And if the increasing number signifies increasing cost, that sounds even better.
Unless manufacturers went with functional names "Ford Econobox", "Hyundai SmallSUV", "Toyota SmallHybrid", "Chevy HugeAssSUV", then there doesn't seem like much difference between using model numbers or model names.
Does not have to be a whole civilization sanctioned signal. It could be some "aliens are out there" nut over there who detected a weak signal from Earth, but nobody believes him, and now his is beaming a signal towards us, hoping someone will respond to him, proving his point. Using off-the-shelf parts or devices available there, mind you.
Possible, but seems unlikely that a small group would have access to a planet's worth of power output to make a long distance call to someone that might not even exist without larger societal cooperation. But yeah, for a sufficiently advanced society, that much power might be available in children's home science experimentation kits.
> Aliens that are advanced enough to signal us with that kind of power aren't going to find us advanced enough to be worth talking to
A highly developed civilization does not always imply rationality, as most of us understand it. Case in point: a real non-zero possibility that Trump can be the next president.
Perhaps if Trump were to be elected by a highly developed civilization I could see your point. I think the Brexit vote is a better example.
This makes me lose a lot of sympathy for the cat, the cat is clearly aligned with Big Oil interests and shouldn't be using wealth gained by its climate destroying drilling practices to stomp on small time coffee makers.
Aliens that are advanced enough to signal us with that kind of power aren't going to find us advanced enough to be worth talking to if they can even understand our primitive methods of communication at all. If there's anything we have that they want, they'll just come take it, much like we don't ask permission before clearcutting forests inhabited by animals. Even if they just want to study us, our scientists don't send a beacon to an ant colony before they come and fill the ant colony with molten aluminum to take a casting -- so there's no reason to think that advanced aliens would do so either, they'll just come and do their studies and if they happen to kill humanity with their research techniques, that's just a necessary part of research, no big loss.
Who the cares if there's 2M vs 2.2M? The vast majority of people use the same apps: Facebook, Twitter, a few store apps, the popular game(s) du jour (Candy Crush, Pokemon, etc) The remaining tend to be hidden-browser style apps for stores.
Literally 95% of those apps could disappear and nobody would give two shits.
I mean, if you really want to get technical, generally speaking, only one app (on idevices) can crash at any given time. On Android, there can be a lot more running tasks for customizations and system changes. Logically speaking, Android SHOULD be the one that crashes more since there's a lot more interactions going on.
Apparently the the parent poster does since he said that the availability of more apps on the iPhone contributes to more crashes.
Sounds like weak logic, but that assumption is not even true.
I think what the poster was suggesting is that including 3rd party app crashes in this statistic in the same way as battery failure may be a bit misleading given the overall theme... For instance did they add weight to the fact that iOS has more apps for which to crash and that people use their iOS devices more than people use Android? This could be important so maybe a weighted per app MTBF would be a better approach. Or anything else as arbitrary as the original study. Now that I think about it, perhaps replacement should count as failure...
There are more Apps in Android's app store than in Apple's: 2.2M apps for Android, 2M apps for Apple.
His senses are slowing with age to the point he needs assistance, so he buys the racecar version? Nice..
When you have $100K to spend on a car, it's hard to not get one that's a racecar under the hood. The Tesla might have the power of racecar, but it's easy to not drive it like one.
He's in his 50's now, so it's not like he's elderly, and he used to be an actual race car driver, so even if he says he feels slowed reflexes, I'd say he's still better than 90% of drivers out there.
So, how does the Tesla autopilot differ from a regular car that does not have such feature? In both you need to pay attention to the road, presumably the same. So why use autopilot at all?
I asked a guy I know who drives a P90 the same question - he said he uses it for several reasons. One, he feels that it gives him a level of safety above his own capabilities, if he sneezes or is otherwise distracted, he likes knowing that the car *may* be able to take over (which is quite a bit better than a standard car which cannot take over at all), also he said that as he ages, he feels that his reflexes are getting slower, so he likes that the car is watching over his driving. Second, his uncle died after a stroke while driving with his wife, the stroke didn't kill him, but running off the road killed both him and his wife, if he'd been in a self driving car, it's likely that the car would have just continued driving until it sensed that he was no longer in control and pulled off the road. And last, he likes that his use of auto-pilot gives Tesla real-world feedback on the system so they can improve it, so that by the time he's ready to give up driving, his car will be fully auto-drive capable. He said that due to this last point, he enables auto-pilot as much as possible.
And he added that anyone that thinks it can drive the car unattended is an idiot.
Wrong. Autopilots in all commercial aircraft are capable of flying a route automatically, including changes in altitude and speed along the way. Level 1 autopilots (i.e. wing levelers) are only found in low-end general aviation aircraft. Now please stop spewing misinformation.
You mean the kind of aircraft that the vast of majority of people would actually fly if they were to become private pilots?
Eh, Slashdot? After all the picked nits you've had over the years?
If it isn't free software, don't call it free software.
If it's phr34k1n ur ph()()nez d00d, don't call it a hacker.
Well:
If it isn't autopilot, don't call it autopilot.
What makes you think that "autopilot" will drive your car with no input from you? The autopilot in the vast majority of airplanes will keep your airplane in straight and level flight, might fly the route you give it, but won't avoid obstacles in the way (including terrain, if you tell it to fly at 5000 feet, it will blindly fly you into a 6000 ft mountain), and won't land your plane, it'll fly until you run out of fuel. Likewise, set the autopilot in your boat and let it run unattended and it will run you right into an island or into the side of the freighter that crosses your path.
If they called it "self-driving mode", then I could see your point.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but "burst into flame for a few seconds" doesn't get as many clicks as "tablets exploding", does it? :D
I'd click on either headline.
You know just because they have the same stuff in them does not mean the design is obviously faulty like this device. I would consider any fire on a jet to be a very serious situation and its not worth the risk so somebody can check facebook.
So you're proposing banning all phones from all planes (in both checked bags and carry-on)?
As I understand it, the recall effot on the Note 7 has been for the cell service providers to tell their customers to return their phones to the store they bought them from, and then exchange it for a new Note 7 without the problem battery in it. How do they plan on telling ones that have undergone the recall (and thus are safe) from those that haven't, even months later when the recall is "over"?
The same way other recalls do it -- serial numbers that indicate which phones have the bad battery.
Your house can be disconnected from the mains at a safe distance.
Disconnecting the batteries in an electric car on fire - not so easy.
Unless your house has solar + battery backup. Many have an off-switch for emergency responders (sometimes required by law), but you still need to approach the house to reach it.
> This is serious business
No it's not. It's the usual The Guardian clickbait that makes it sound like the sky is falling.
This isn't some large-scale assault on bees. Those 2,5 million (big scary number) are the bees of a single beekeper who from the sound of other articles either wasn't in some registry or didn't get informed by accident.
But who notifies the millions of natural bees that don't have friendly beekeeper to register them?
He already had an entire planet named after him, why does he need an asteroid named after him too?
Even if I did share my contact list or SMS messages with the car, what are rental car clerks going to do with my contacts or a text message from my sister that reads "When are you going to be here?"?
Who says it will be the rental company employees doing the mining?
If I was a nefarious person I would rental high end cars from major airports for a day and see if any business people used the car and left any juicy details in the info system that would be very useful for social engineering attacks.
Would you really? You'd spend $125 a pop just on the off chance you'd find something valuable? And since you don't want it tracked back to you, you'd use a stolen identity and credit card each time?
I said "rental car clerks" because they are the ones that have free access to every single car and it doesn't make sense to rent a car for an entire day for a 30 second operation.
Even if I did share my contact list or SMS messages with the car, what are rental car clerks going to do with my contacts or a text message from my sister that reads "When are you going to be here?"?
Thousands of car rental employees mining car entertainment systems for data seems like an awfully inefficient way for hackers to harvest data when it's far easier to do the same thing by releasing a trojan horse app to collect the data.
You nerds are getting what you deserve, with your desire to put electronics and computers in everything. Poetic justice, I must say.
Except it's not the nerds that have problems with this -- the nerds already know that they shouldn't plug (or sync) their phone into untrusted systems.
So having a news story about an unknown startup is about as dumb as interviewing the guy next to you on the bus. Sure, it might turn out to be interesting but chances are it's a waste of time.
The story wasn't about the startup itself or their product, but about the way they defrauded their employees.
Why do people stay at a company if it has missed a payday? The day my employer misses a payday, I go home and don't come back until they come up with a paycheck (if at all, since while I'm home I look for another job immediately). Do people stay out of loyalty or naiveté or what?
Because they realize that working at a startup takes a certain amount of sacrifice, I stayed at a startup when they couldn't make payroll for 3 weeks, they admitted it beforehand, and told us that we were free to take unpaid leave during that period if we wanted to, or we could work and eventually get paid. The CEO offered personal loans with his own money to anyone that had rent, mortgage or other obligation coming up. Most of the employees continued working, we got paid in 3 weeks as promised with a 25% bonus. Those that took the unpaid leave came back and returned to their jobs.
Even in a hot job market like Silicon Valley, it takes more than a few weeks to line up a *good* job, so it's worth taking a bit of risk if you're otherwise happy with the company and the product you're working on.
Not sure if you are being serious, but: if your company isn't paying you, then you are already in violation of your H1 visa.
Which is all the more reason to stay when the money they owe you is right around the corner, just need to wait for that wire transfer to come through, any day now.
Obviously she must be horrible at her job as Marketing Director, and thus was fired with cause... /s
Seriously though, I've never heard of them. What's the point of a job site nobody knows about?
Every company starts as an unknown. You could have said the same thing about Google in 1998. "'Google??' what kind of name is that? Why do they even exist when we have AltaVista and Excite!?"
Of course, few startups advance to become a household name, most fail or are acquired and are forgotten.
You are assuming that they would be scientifically and technologically so far beyond us that we would seem like ants to them, but that at the same time they would have morals as backwards as ours. I would rather expect (hope?) that any civilisation old enough to reach a Kardashev II stage without obliterating themselves or their ecosystem, would also have developed a moral system abolishing specism. In their eyes sentient beings of any kind would have the same right to exist and develop in their natural environment. If anything these aliens could choose to intervene and stop our needless exploitation and enslaving of other species (a.k.a. livestock farming).
Why would you think such a thing? Is there some competitive advantage to be altruistic towards once's neighbors? Maybe a society that has a philosophy of killing its neighbors is the one to survive?
Unlike earth where cooperating tribesmen help perpetuate the species as a whole even if they don't improve their own tribe's survival, there's not a whole lot of incentive for a spacefaring society to foster the growth of up and coming competitors - much easier to nip them in the bud while still technologically undeveloped. Maybe poke at them for a while for amusement, because why not?
I don't see the problem -- Genesis and Equus are just as opaque as G80 and G90, and I hadn't heard of any of those model until reading this article.
Most consumers only have one or two cars and only shop for a new car ever 5 -10 years, so they need to learn the current models when they shop, and they can learn alphanumeric models just as easy as unique model names. And if the increasing number signifies increasing cost, that sounds even better.
Unless manufacturers went with functional names "Ford Econobox", "Hyundai SmallSUV", "Toyota SmallHybrid", "Chevy HugeAssSUV", then there doesn't seem like much difference between using model numbers or model names.
Does not have to be a whole civilization sanctioned signal. It could be some "aliens are out there" nut over there who detected a weak signal from Earth, but nobody believes him, and now his is beaming a signal towards us, hoping someone will respond to him, proving his point. Using off-the-shelf parts or devices available there, mind you.
Possible, but seems unlikely that a small group would have access to a planet's worth of power output to make a long distance call to someone that might not even exist without larger societal cooperation. But yeah, for a sufficiently advanced society, that much power might be available in children's home science experimentation kits.
> Aliens that are advanced enough to signal us with that kind of power aren't going to find us advanced enough to be worth talking to
A highly developed civilization does not always imply rationality, as most of us understand it. Case in point: a real non-zero possibility that Trump can be the next president.
Perhaps if Trump were to be elected by a highly developed civilization I could see your point. I think the Brexit vote is a better example.
It's their fracking cat.
This makes me lose a lot of sympathy for the cat, the cat is clearly aligned with Big Oil interests and shouldn't be using wealth gained by its climate destroying drilling practices to stomp on small time coffee makers.
Aliens that are advanced enough to signal us with that kind of power aren't going to find us advanced enough to be worth talking to if they can even understand our primitive methods of communication at all. If there's anything we have that they want, they'll just come take it, much like we don't ask permission before clearcutting forests inhabited by animals. Even if they just want to study us, our scientists don't send a beacon to an ant colony before they come and fill the ant colony with molten aluminum to take a casting -- so there's no reason to think that advanced aliens would do so either, they'll just come and do their studies and if they happen to kill humanity with their research techniques, that's just a necessary part of research, no big loss.
Who the cares if there's 2M vs 2.2M? The vast majority of people use the same apps: Facebook, Twitter, a few store apps, the popular game(s) du jour (Candy Crush, Pokemon, etc) The remaining tend to be hidden-browser style apps for stores.
Literally 95% of those apps could disappear and nobody would give two shits.
I mean, if you really want to get technical, generally speaking, only one app (on idevices) can crash at any given time. On Android, there can be a lot more running tasks for customizations and system changes. Logically speaking, Android SHOULD be the one that crashes more since there's a lot more interactions going on.
Apparently the the parent poster does since he said that the availability of more apps on the iPhone contributes to more crashes.
Sounds like weak logic, but that assumption is not even true.
I think what the poster was suggesting is that including 3rd party app crashes in this statistic in the same way as battery failure may be a bit misleading given the overall theme... For instance did they add weight to the fact that iOS has more apps for which to crash and that people use their iOS devices more than people use Android? This could be important so maybe a weighted per app MTBF would be a better approach. Or anything else as arbitrary as the original study. Now that I think about it, perhaps replacement should count as failure...
There are more Apps in Android's app store than in Apple's: 2.2M apps for Android, 2M apps for Apple.
http://www.statista.com/statis...
I couldn't find a source for "people use their iOS devices more than people use Android", can you cite that?
His senses are slowing with age to the point he needs assistance, so he buys the racecar version? Nice..
When you have $100K to spend on a car, it's hard to not get one that's a racecar under the hood. The Tesla might have the power of racecar, but it's easy to not drive it like one.
He's in his 50's now, so it's not like he's elderly, and he used to be an actual race car driver, so even if he says he feels slowed reflexes, I'd say he's still better than 90% of drivers out there.
So, how does the Tesla autopilot differ from a regular car that does not have such feature? In both you need to pay attention to the road, presumably the same. So why use autopilot at all?
I asked a guy I know who drives a P90 the same question - he said he uses it for several reasons. One, he feels that it gives him a level of safety above his own capabilities, if he sneezes or is otherwise distracted, he likes knowing that the car *may* be able to take over (which is quite a bit better than a standard car which cannot take over at all), also he said that as he ages, he feels that his reflexes are getting slower, so he likes that the car is watching over his driving. Second, his uncle died after a stroke while driving with his wife, the stroke didn't kill him, but running off the road killed both him and his wife, if he'd been in a self driving car, it's likely that the car would have just continued driving until it sensed that he was no longer in control and pulled off the road. And last, he likes that his use of auto-pilot gives Tesla real-world feedback on the system so they can improve it, so that by the time he's ready to give up driving, his car will be fully auto-drive capable. He said that due to this last point, he enables auto-pilot as much as possible.
And he added that anyone that thinks it can drive the car unattended is an idiot.
Wrong. Autopilots in all commercial aircraft are capable of flying a route automatically, including changes in altitude and speed along the way. Level 1 autopilots (i.e. wing levelers) are only found in low-end general aviation aircraft. Now please stop spewing misinformation.
You mean the kind of aircraft that the vast of majority of people would actually fly if they were to become private pilots?
Eh, Slashdot? After all the picked nits you've had over the years?
If it isn't free software, don't call it free software.
If it's phr34k1n ur ph()()nez d00d, don't call it a hacker.
Well:
If it isn't autopilot, don't call it autopilot.
What makes you think that "autopilot" will drive your car with no input from you? The autopilot in the vast majority of airplanes will keep your airplane in straight and level flight, might fly the route you give it, but won't avoid obstacles in the way (including terrain, if you tell it to fly at 5000 feet, it will blindly fly you into a 6000 ft mountain), and won't land your plane, it'll fly until you run out of fuel. Likewise, set the autopilot in your boat and let it run unattended and it will run you right into an island or into the side of the freighter that crosses your path.
If they called it "self-driving mode", then I could see your point.