I believe 30,000 cycles per second is greater than 40 cycles per second and less than 60,000 cycles per second so 30 kHz is within that range. Did you read 40 Hz as 40 kHz?
Few dispute that classic ADHD, historically estimated to affect 5 percent of children, is a legitimate disability that impedes success at school, work and personal life. But recent data from the CDC show that the diagnosis had been made in 15 percent of high school-age children, and that the number of children on medication for the disorder had soared to 3.5 million from 600,000 in 1990."
According to this census data there are 62.3 million School aged children in the US, Five percent of that is 3.1 Million. The numbers don't seem so far off. Even the 5% may be off as diagnostic criteria changes over time. It may be higher now.
A radar with a collision avoidance feature and the distance-sensing cruise control is a very simple device. all it does is look for an object that is directly in front of the vehicle and measure the distance. It creates a very course picture of the road. That picture would have to be orders of magnitude finer to be usable to guide a car along a road.
If one saw a small, live unattached animal on the side of the road it is usually prudent to slow down a bit and move a bit away from the animal. This would give the prudent driver a bit more time to compensate and may have a smaller chance of startling the animal into doing something stupid.
It generally isn't a problem because single readings are never used.
Sorry but as far as I have seen in designs there is one sensor for each area with little or no overlap. Also multiple scanners would increase the issue.
Think about how many devices manage to share unlicensed radio spectrum
That works because most devices do not transmit continually and there is a great deal of dead space. Whenever there is a collision the data is just re-transmitted. That is very different than an area scanner which transmits continually.
how few cars will be that close together.
Take an 8 lane highway at rush hour in bumper to bumper traffic with a 200 foot range. With a car every 20 feet that is 40 cars in each of 8 lanes which so 320 cars. That is a lot of emitters.
Getting multiple vehicles to communicate and cooperate is a much more complex problem than individual vehicles navigating on their own. We have enough problems sharing data between PCs,,Macs and Unix devices and we have been trying for decades. Just try to get all manufacturers to agree on a data standard. It could take decades.
In both your examples the speeds are very different from vehicles and the consequences of collisions are non fatal. If a couple of bats collide they bounce. If a couple of vehicles collide they crash. There is also the probability that each animal can send out a slightly different signal and detect it. While active technologies can also do this it is an added layer of complexity.
The article does not say they can identify which is the bag and which is the animal it just says they can detect a difference. In an experiment where there was a paper bag and a small animal in the field of view of of the sensor there are at least two outcomes. 1. The sensor returns "there are two different kinds of objects out there". Therefore the sensor has detected a difference between a paper bag and a small animal. That is exactly what the claim states. 2. The sensor returns that object a is a paper bag and object b is a small animal. That would be identification and nowhere in the statement is there a claim of identification. Had they meant the second outcome they should have said something like "The sensor can identify a paper bag and a small animal by their differences" We often read too much into a statement and don't really think about what it actually said. It reminds me of one of my favorite mathematician jokes.
An economics professor, an Engineer and a mathematician are on a train to Glasgow. The economics professor looks out the window and sees a field full of sheep and says "Wow, all the sheep in Scotland are black." The Engineer look out and says "Some of the sheep in Scotland are black." The mathematician looks out and says "In Scotland there exists at least one field in which the sheep are black on at least one side." The mathematician is the most correct in that the statement is based on exactly what he saw. Only one field and only one side of each sheep.
I mean the other autonomous vehicles on the road with their active ranging technologies. If every \car on the freeway is autonomous there are a lot of emitters.
Ford says the research vehicle's sensors are sensitive enough to detect the difference between a small animal and a paper bag even at maximum range.
Given that the sensors can detect a difference here are some follow on questions that seem important. 1. Can it detect which one is the animal and which one is the bag? (they talk about difference not identification) 2. Can it tell if the small animal is alive or dead if it is not moving. 3. Can it tell if the animal is on a leash and not going to be an issue? 4. Can it detect if there is a barrier between the animal and the desired route of travel and the animal not being an issue? 5. Can it tell the difference between a turtle and a rabbit? Turtles having much more restricted movement possibilities than a rabbit. 6. Will it remember that the small animal went into the bag. Out of sight out of mind. 7. Can it differentiate between an empty bag and a bag of cement? Driving over an empty bag is not a problem. Driving over a bag of cement is probably a problem. Detecting the difference between a small animal and a paper bag is important but it is only the first step in in a very complex decision process to determine what to do with that information.
I wonder about all these active technologies; lidar, radar, ultrasonic, etc. They work very well when there is only one vehicle in the area. What happens on a crowded freeway when there are a couple hundred vehicles an the area pumping out all those emissions? Wouldn't it be difficult to differentiate between returns due to your emitters and the emitters from other vehicles? Unless each emitter is working on a different frequency interference is a possibility. There is also the issue of sensors being sensitive enough to detect return but filtered enough not to be dazzled by the direct emissions from other vehicles close by.
Isn't 15 minutes to discharge a battery hard on the battery? I would think the vehicle battery would be optimized for a draw rate that would occur during normal driving. The Leaf has a 24Kwhr battery to discharge that in 15 minutes would be a draw of 96Kw. Even at 240 Volts that is 400 Amps. That is a lot of power. A fast discharge rate coupled with an extra charge cycle per work day adds up to very short battery life. Who is going to pay for the new battery and will the cost be offset by the savings on the electricity bill.
A Martian outpost is nothing like a hurricane strike. A hurricane strike is a natural disaster and natural disasters can happen anywhere. Volunteering to go on a dangerous mission to Mars is a conscious choice to go in harm's way. I, for one, am not going to foot a billion dollar tax bill because someone's hair brained scheme fell through. There is a point at which a "rescue effort" becomes too costly. To me, Mars is beyond our Search and Rescue obligation. My response to things going wrong on Mars would be "Sucks to be you. Looks like all those people, including me, who said you would die fairly quickly on Mars were right."
Lock picks are a bit different in they have the legitimate use of opening locks when keys are lost. The streaming decryption has no use other than decrypting information the user has not paid for. Therefore its only use is for copyright infringement. Also, in some jurisdictions, B.C., Saskatchewan, and Alberta for example, one must have a license to carry lock picks.
There is a huge difference between something working about 70% of the time as the current system does and something that works about 5% of the time as your suggestions probably would.
My suggestions have the advantage that they will not get anyone killed.
True until the next time that driver gets drunk and kills someone.
First there is the issue of vehicles registered to owners who do not live nearby. I am sure a cop from San Francisco is going to drive to Reno to sit in a suspect's driveway. Next, all the driver has to do is ask for a lawyer and all the "sweating" is over. You really need to learn about the legal rights of suspects.
If it's stolen, put out a BOLO.
Considering that 32% of vehicles that are involved in a high speed chase are already stolen that may not be an effective idea. You may find the vehicle and maybe even a driver but proving that the driver was operating the vehicle when it was fleeing the police is almost impossible. "Honest officer, I just found it a few minutes ago with the keys in it"
You continue to reach for straws without thinking things through. Before posting again please think about how a driver could get around your ideas.
Car's CAN Bus is ring network with no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system. If you can broadcast into it, then you can affect operation of the car in very drastic ways.
Much in the same way as the PCI bus on your computer has "no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system". The bus does not need to be secured. The entry points to the bus need to be secures much in the same way as the Ethernet card provides secure access to the PCI bus.
Security researchers have taken control of in-auto networks by plugging hardware into the bus. You can do a lot to control a car if you can plug onto the diagnostic port and have a laptop sitting on the passenger seat. I think most people would notice that and be a bit suspicious. There has yet to be a wireless access into an unaltered in-auto system. If that starts to happen then worry.
Insanity is allowing things like Entertainment/Navigation/OnStar system access to it,
If the OnStar system is secured and only responds to a specific set of commands I see no "insanity". The whole CAN bus API would not be exposed through the OnStar API. I used to work a a company that facilitated disabling vehicles and locking their doors (It was an application designed for an exotic car rental company. They wanted to be able to disable the vehicle if the vehicle was miss-used). Through our API those were the only commands available. There was no way a hacker could do anything else. The connection to the vehicle was authenticated and encrypted. Every entertainment system has authentication if it uses Bluetooth as authentication is built into the Bluetooth pairing protocol.
Authentication on the bus is not an issue; authentication at entry points is.
you are no longer thinking about this completely. The scenario is as follows; 1. The police start to chase a suspect 2. the suspect accelerates to high speed 3. The police call off the chase due to it being a high speed chase and lose contact with the suspect (the helicopter has not arrived on scene yet). 4. As the article states, the suspect quickly reduces speed to a normal driving speed as the police officer is no longer in sight.
I am talking about the fleeing vehicle going 30mph after the officer breaks off the initial chase. I then used that speed to calculate the possible area that the vehicle could be in.
The helicopter could be miles away and will take time to get into the area. That is the ten minutes I am talking about. Yes the fleeing driver is more constrained but the helicopter is also unable to read license plates and it is difficult to identify specific cars from a couple thousand feet. Even if the vehicle could only travel a mile before the helicopter shows up that is still three square miles that the vehicle could be in. While an observer may be able to see that far the view of vehicles can be obstructed by buildings, trees, other vehicles, etc. One helicopter is not going to find the vehicle in even that small an area. Then there are the times where helicopters are not available.
Helicopters are not everywhere. Many jurisdictions don't even have them. So at 30 miles an hour in the ten minutes it takes the helicopter to get there, if one is available, would still be a 27 square mile area. See what I mean by needing to keep the fleeing vehicle in sight until air support arrives?
So do the police in North America. This article is about banning all high speed chases not just chases that are deemed unsafe. In effect it takes judgement call away from the police officers on scene and tries to set a hard and fast rule. Those kinds of rules rarely work well.
Personally I value my life, and the life of my family and friends, over ensuring that every person who runs from police is caught.
You might say something different if that chronic drunk driver who avoided police custody last night by driving fast kills your family or friends some time in the future. We are not talking about every person being caught. The article is talking about almost no people being caught. There is a happy medium somewhere between the two which is why police officers now have the judgement whether or not to persue a freeing vehicle.
If there's that much traffic, it's not going to be a high speed chase.
You really need to watch a few more chases on TV.
Say a vehicle is driving at 60MPH. In three minutes that vehicle will have driven 3 miles. Which means that the vehicle could be anywhere in a 27 square mile area with a perimeter of 18 miles. Most police departments do not have the manpower to effectively search that large of an area. At 5 minutes the area becomes 75 square miles. If the vehicle is doing 100mph those numbers increase to 75 square miles in 3 minutes and over 200 square miles in 5 minutes. Do you now see why it is critical to keep visual contact with a vehicle to be able to catch it?
So the initial cops sees the tag. The car bolts and get out of sight. In the next 30 seconds that car could make any number of turns and be completely lost in traffic. Now you have cops looking for a car and license plate with little likelihood of actually finding it.
Slashdot Mirror
That would require the "accidental shoplifter" to return the item when they realized they had it.
I believe 30,000 cycles per second is greater than 40 cycles per second and less than 60,000 cycles per second so 30 kHz is within that range. Did you read 40 Hz as 40 kHz?
Few dispute that classic ADHD, historically estimated to affect 5 percent of children, is a legitimate disability that impedes success at school, work and personal life. But recent data from the CDC show that the diagnosis had been made in 15 percent of high school-age children, and that the number of children on medication for the disorder had soared to 3.5 million from 600,000 in 1990."
According to this census data there are 62.3 million School aged children in the US, Five percent of that is 3.1 Million. The numbers don't seem so far off. Even the 5% may be off as diagnostic criteria changes over time. It may be higher now.
The Bwtamax war was lost by Sony due to the fact that their high licensing costs eclipsed their technology advantage.
A radar with a collision avoidance feature and the distance-sensing cruise control is a very simple device. all it does is look for an object that is directly in front of the vehicle and measure the distance. It creates a very course picture of the road. That picture would have to be orders of magnitude finer to be usable to guide a car along a road.
If one saw a small, live unattached animal on the side of the road it is usually prudent to slow down a bit and move a bit away from the animal. This would give the prudent driver a bit more time to compensate and may have a smaller chance of startling the animal into doing something stupid.
It generally isn't a problem because single readings are never used.
Sorry but as far as I have seen in designs there is one sensor for each area with little or no overlap. Also multiple scanners would increase the issue.
Think about how many devices manage to share unlicensed radio spectrum
That works because most devices do not transmit continually and there is a great deal of dead space. Whenever there is a collision the data is just re-transmitted. That is very different than an area scanner which transmits continually.
how few cars will be that close together.
Take an 8 lane highway at rush hour in bumper to bumper traffic with a 200 foot range. With a car every 20 feet that is 40 cars in each of 8 lanes which so 320 cars. That is a lot of emitters.
Getting multiple vehicles to communicate and cooperate is a much more complex problem than individual vehicles navigating on their own. We have enough problems sharing data between PCs,,Macs and Unix devices and we have been trying for decades. Just try to get all manufacturers to agree on a data standard. It could take decades.
In both your examples the speeds are very different from vehicles and the consequences of collisions are non fatal. If a couple of bats collide they bounce. If a couple of vehicles collide they crash. There is also the probability that each animal can send out a slightly different signal and detect it. While active technologies can also do this it is an added layer of complexity.
The article does not say they can identify which is the bag and which is the animal it just says they can detect a difference. In an experiment where there was a paper bag and a small animal in the field of view of of the sensor there are at least two outcomes.
1. The sensor returns "there are two different kinds of objects out there". Therefore the sensor has detected a difference between a paper bag and a small animal. That is exactly what the claim states.
2. The sensor returns that object a is a paper bag and object b is a small animal. That would be identification and nowhere in the statement is there a claim of identification.
Had they meant the second outcome they should have said something like "The sensor can identify a paper bag and a small animal by their differences"
We often read too much into a statement and don't really think about what it actually said. It reminds me of one of my favorite mathematician jokes.
An economics professor, an Engineer and a mathematician are on a train to Glasgow.
The economics professor looks out the window and sees a field full of sheep and says "Wow, all the sheep in Scotland are black."
The Engineer look out and says "Some of the sheep in Scotland are black."
The mathematician looks out and says "In Scotland there exists at least one field in which the sheep are black on at least one side."
The mathematician is the most correct in that the statement is based on exactly what he saw. Only one field and only one side of each sheep.
I mean the other autonomous vehicles on the road with their active ranging technologies. If every \car on the freeway is autonomous there are a lot of emitters.
Ford says the research vehicle's sensors are sensitive enough to detect the difference between a small animal and a paper bag even at maximum range.
Given that the sensors can detect a difference here are some follow on questions that seem important.
1. Can it detect which one is the animal and which one is the bag? (they talk about difference not identification)
2. Can it tell if the small animal is alive or dead if it is not moving.
3. Can it tell if the animal is on a leash and not going to be an issue?
4. Can it detect if there is a barrier between the animal and the desired route of travel and the animal not being an issue?
5. Can it tell the difference between a turtle and a rabbit? Turtles having much more restricted movement possibilities than a rabbit.
6. Will it remember that the small animal went into the bag. Out of sight out of mind.
7. Can it differentiate between an empty bag and a bag of cement? Driving over an empty bag is not a problem. Driving over a bag of cement is probably a problem.
Detecting the difference between a small animal and a paper bag is important but it is only the first step in in a very complex decision process to determine what to do with that information.
I wonder about all these active technologies; lidar, radar, ultrasonic, etc. They work very well when there is only one vehicle in the area. What happens on a crowded freeway when there are a couple hundred vehicles an the area pumping out all those emissions? Wouldn't it be difficult to differentiate between returns due to your emitters and the emitters from other vehicles? Unless each emitter is working on a different frequency interference is a possibility. There is also the issue of sensors being sensitive enough to detect return but filtered enough not to be dazzled by the direct emissions from other vehicles close by.
Isn't 15 minutes to discharge a battery hard on the battery? I would think the vehicle battery would be optimized for a draw rate that would occur during normal driving. The Leaf has a 24Kwhr battery to discharge that in 15 minutes would be a draw of 96Kw. Even at 240 Volts that is 400 Amps. That is a lot of power. A fast discharge rate coupled with an extra charge cycle per work day adds up to very short battery life. Who is going to pay for the new battery and will the cost be offset by the savings on the electricity bill.
A Martian outpost is nothing like a hurricane strike. A hurricane strike is a natural disaster and natural disasters can happen anywhere. Volunteering to go on a dangerous mission to Mars is a conscious choice to go in harm's way. I, for one, am not going to foot a billion dollar tax bill because someone's hair brained scheme fell through. There is a point at which a "rescue effort" becomes too costly. To me, Mars is beyond our Search and Rescue obligation. My response to things going wrong on Mars would be "Sucks to be you. Looks like all those people, including me, who said you would die fairly quickly on Mars were right."
The content provider has the right to deny their stream, but not to determine what is or isn't the legitimate use of their stream.
Do you have any legal precedents to back up this opinion?
Lock picks are a bit different in they have the legitimate use of opening locks when keys are lost. The streaming decryption has no use other than decrypting information the user has not paid for. Therefore its only use is for copyright infringement. Also, in some jurisdictions, B.C., Saskatchewan, and Alberta for example, one must have a license to carry lock picks.
There is a huge difference between something working about 70% of the time as the current system does and something that works about 5% of the time as your suggestions probably would.
My suggestions have the advantage that they will not get anyone killed.
True until the next time that driver gets drunk and kills someone.
Go to the owner's residence in the A.M.
First there is the issue of vehicles registered to owners who do not live nearby. I am sure a cop from San Francisco is going to drive to Reno to sit in a suspect's driveway. Next, all the driver has to do is ask for a lawyer and all the "sweating" is over. You really need to learn about the legal rights of suspects.
If it's stolen, put out a BOLO.
Considering that 32% of vehicles that are involved in a high speed chase are already stolen that may not be an effective idea. You may find the vehicle and maybe even a driver but proving that the driver was operating the vehicle when it was fleeing the police is almost impossible. "Honest officer, I just found it a few minutes ago with the keys in it"
You continue to reach for straws without thinking things through. Before posting again please think about how a driver could get around your ideas.
Car's CAN Bus is ring network with no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system. If you can broadcast into it, then you can affect operation of the car in very drastic ways.
Much in the same way as the PCI bus on your computer has "no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system". The bus does not need to be secured. The entry points to the bus need to be secures much in the same way as the Ethernet card provides secure access to the PCI bus.
Security researchers have taken control of in-auto networks by plugging hardware into the bus. You can do a lot to control a car if you can plug onto the diagnostic port and have a laptop sitting on the passenger seat. I think most people would notice that and be a bit suspicious. There has yet to be a wireless access into an unaltered in-auto system. If that starts to happen then worry.
Insanity is allowing things like Entertainment/Navigation/OnStar system access to it,
If the OnStar system is secured and only responds to a specific set of commands I see no "insanity". The whole CAN bus API would not be exposed through the OnStar API. I used to work a a company that facilitated disabling vehicles and locking their doors (It was an application designed for an exotic car rental company. They wanted to be able to disable the vehicle if the vehicle was miss-used). Through our API those were the only commands available. There was no way a hacker could do anything else. The connection to the vehicle was authenticated and encrypted. Every entertainment system has authentication if it uses Bluetooth as authentication is built into the Bluetooth pairing protocol.
Authentication on the bus is not an issue; authentication at entry points is.
you are no longer thinking about this completely. The scenario is as follows;
1. The police start to chase a suspect
2. the suspect accelerates to high speed
3. The police call off the chase due to it being a high speed chase and lose contact with the suspect (the helicopter has not arrived on scene yet).
4. As the article states, the suspect quickly reduces speed to a normal driving speed as the police officer is no longer in sight.
How do the police catch this suspect?
Helos go a LOT faster than 30MPH.
I am talking about the fleeing vehicle going 30mph after the officer breaks off the initial chase. I then used that speed to calculate the possible area that the vehicle could be in.
The helicopter could be miles away and will take time to get into the area. That is the ten minutes I am talking about. Yes the fleeing driver is more constrained but the helicopter is also unable to read license plates and it is difficult to identify specific cars from a couple thousand feet. Even if the vehicle could only travel a mile before the helicopter shows up that is still three square miles that the vehicle could be in. While an observer may be able to see that far the view of vehicles can be obstructed by buildings, trees, other vehicles, etc. One helicopter is not going to find the vehicle in even that small an area. Then there are the times where helicopters are not available.
Helicopters are not everywhere. Many jurisdictions don't even have them. So at 30 miles an hour in the ten minutes it takes the helicopter to get there, if one is available, would still be a 27 square mile area. See what I mean by needing to keep the fleeing vehicle in sight until air support arrives?
So do the police in North America. This article is about banning all high speed chases not just chases that are deemed unsafe. In effect it takes judgement call away from the police officers on scene and tries to set a hard and fast rule. Those kinds of rules rarely work well.
Personally I value my life, and the life of my family and friends, over ensuring that every person who runs from police is caught.
You might say something different if that chronic drunk driver who avoided police custody last night by driving fast kills your family or friends some time in the future. We are not talking about every person being caught. The article is talking about almost no people being caught. There is a happy medium somewhere between the two which is why police officers now have the judgement whether or not to persue a freeing vehicle.
If there's that much traffic, it's not going to be a high speed chase.
You really need to watch a few more chases on TV.
Say a vehicle is driving at 60MPH. In three minutes that vehicle will have driven 3 miles. Which means that the vehicle could be anywhere in a 27 square mile area with a perimeter of 18 miles. Most police departments do not have the manpower to effectively search that large of an area. At 5 minutes the area becomes 75 square miles. If the vehicle is doing 100mph those numbers increase to 75 square miles in 3 minutes and over 200 square miles in 5 minutes. Do you now see why it is critical to keep visual contact with a vehicle to be able to catch it?
So the initial cops sees the tag. The car bolts and get out of sight. In the next 30 seconds that car could make any number of turns and be completely lost in traffic. Now you have cops looking for a car and license plate with little likelihood of actually finding it.