Are you saying theft of intellectual property should be a civil matter while theft of real property should be a criminal matter? Why should there be less protection for intellectual property that physical property. They both have monetary value.
I think that too many "studies" set out to prove a hypothesis instead of test a hypothesis. The drive to prove something puts bias into the study and skews the outcome. No one wants to be proven wrong. This is especially important when the measurements are subjective as in many psychology studies.
How do you know the inner workings of a gateway you have never seen? I agree that such a gateway should be programmed the way you describe but it is possible for a gateway to just forward messages along with no filtering. My point is that filtering can be done at the entry point just as well as the gateway.
All these comments about DHS should be doing other things than dealing with copyright laws are just stupid. By that logic no police officers should be catching burglars because there are murders who have not be caught yet. The police deal with this by having some officers assigned to a homicide squad and others assigned to a robbery squad. The DHS is a huge organization and they have many jobs to do. One of their departments is ICE which has a task of looking into copyright infringement. Just because their most important job is not complete (and never will be) does not mean they can or should neglect their others jobs.
The reproduction and distribution of copyright material is a criminal as well as a civil matter. ICE is tasked with investigating copyright infringement in the US. The fact that they are now under the umbrella of the DHS is just sensationalism.
The Kármán line, or Karman line, lies at an altitude of 100 kilometres (62 mi) above the Earth's sea level, and commonly represents the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space. This definition is accepted by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), which is an international standard setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics. By saing "edge of space" and then "90,000ft" (27.4km) they are making a mockery of the "Edge of space". When has 27.4% towards a goal ever been "close" to a goal? They further exagerate using this artist's rendering. The curvature of the earth would be much less. Here is an actual photo taken at 90,000ft.
In the end 27.4kM is not close to 100km and therefore not close to the edge of space. Sorry but you can't re-define something that has been internationally agreed upon to make your aircraft look better.
I think the issue with this article is that it concentrates too much on networks. It assumes that separating features into different networks is less hackable. Then it states this;
"Each feature of the car is separated on a different network and connected by a gateway,"
Here are two scenarios; 1. All systems run on one network. The entry points to the network are very secure and almost impossible to crack. All entry points only allow specific commands to go through. For example the radio portal will not allow a brake command to pass. 2. All systems run on different networks connected by a gateway. The entry point security is poor and the gateway security is poor. There is no filtering of commands from subsystems.
Which one do you think is more hackable? If one can get in easily and talk between networks easily it is no different than a poorly secured single network.
I think there is as assumption in your statement that I only treat friends with kindness and respect. That assumption is false. I treat everyone kindly and with respect. This is like all those people on Facebook that have thousands of "friends" but have never actually even met or talked to most of them. To me "friend" is a very special title. A friend could call me up at 3AM and ask me to come get them from the side of the road. Would I do that for a desk clerk I met once? No. I don't go through life with the objective of gathering "Friends" I will never meet again.
one who can ask simple questions like, "How you are doing today?"
Too many people ask that question but don't really care what the answer is. If I am in a line of people waiting to check in that kind of empty conversation just wastes time. I think the GP was trying to point out that we aren't all "silver tongued devils" who can talk a clerk into giving us an free upgrade.
Frankly I do not want a personal relationship with a someone I may see only twice during my lifetime.
The fact that the raw data is there and the computer having the ability to interpret that raw data in any meaningful way is oceans apart. Comparing lane following to object identification is like comparing the game of x's and o's to chess. The complexity of the problems are several orders of magnitude apart.
These systems are actually quite good at some of your list - you might surprised.
Remember the subject of this conversation; lane following and interval maintenance. While that assist driving they are very far from autonomous driving. Lane following is simple in that it uses two painted lines to figure out where the lane is and steers to stay between the lines. It does not figure out if the line curve s ahead and there needs to be a speed reduction to deal with it. Interval maintenance is simple because all it does is puts on the brakes if the interval gets below a minimum. Say you approaching a narrow bridge. The bridge has to be identified. How can you identify a bridge if all the information you have is the position of the left side of the lane, the position of the right side of the lane and the distance to the vehicle in front of you?
Things that this can not handle in a rural setting; - lack of lane marker on right - animals on road - people turning left from the opposite direction - people entering from side roads - intersections - distinguishing between lane markers and tar strips - lack of center line - debris,gravel on road - potholes - speed changes due to corners - narrow bridges
Rural roads are even harder to deal with than freeways.
conditions it won't handle - changing lanes - passing - letting other drivers in - avoiding debris on the road - entering/leaving highway - dealing with construction zones - avoiding reckless drivers - lane selection
Lane keeping and distance keeping are only a small part of driving.
To me "social" is talking about personal, meaningful things. Friendly is a mode of pleasant conversion. While acting friendly is part of being social, one does not have to be social to be friendly.
I am definitely not a Millennial and I would love this service. If I could get off the shuttle and go directly to my room I would be in heaven.
anti-social behind the monitor type Millennials don't have to talk to actual people.
Have you really ever been "social" with a desk clerk? When I am checking in I am usually tired and want to lie down. Being "social" is the last thing on my mind.
she can't even make a fucking phone call if there's a chance company X has a "WebChat!"
I love web chat. Here are a list of things I like about web chat - I can do several things while I web chat. I am not stuck waiting listening to hold music. - I can re-read what was said in case I missed something. - I can edit my message for clarity. - I can usually get a transcript for later reference. To me, text chat is just as social as voice.
My original statement still stands; 150 cycles is not "stable". It is just less unstable than previous attempts. When that can show 2000-3000 cycles then we can talk about "stable".
I think you ask too little. What get me are quotes like this;
The team is looking at a price point of $25,000 for an EV battery range of 300 miles, which would be competitive with a 40 mpg gasmobile.
They haven't even shown that their battery will last six months at a charge cycle a day. As there is no mention of it I doubt they have built a full EV scale battery yet. There is a huge gulf between what they have and what they are "looking at". If they haven't even done long term cycle studies they surly have not looked into the cost of mass production. How can they come up with battery costs? Had they stopped at what they had proven then I would not be so critical. By defecting attention from what they actually have done to what they what you to think they have done sounds fishy to me.
I have to tell my math story again. There is an economist, and engineer on a train going to Glasgow. The economist looked out the window and sees some sheep with black wool and says "Wow, all of the sheep in Scotland are black". The engineer looks out the window and says "Some of the sheep in Scotland are black". The mathematician looks out and says "There exists in Scotland at lest one field where there are sheep that are black on at lest one side". All they could see was one field and one side of each sheep. Anything else is not proven.
There is a huge difference between a "hater" and a "skeptic". Doubling from a absolutely useless number of cycles to a completely useless number if cycles is significant but not useful. I like reading stuff in the load but touting this kind of improvement as something that will revolutionizes electric vehicle pricing is much too soon. It appears to be a marketing ploy to gain investment in a sham. The sooner shams are expose the sooner investment goes into areas of real possibility.
If you look closely at the Mars maintenance picture you will see a couple of things. First the tread on the wheels under the aircraft are quite aggressive. I have never seen that kind of tread on landing gear. Second the wing pontoons are supported by scaffolding and not wheels. My theory is that the Mars has the facility to attach dollies to the air frame to allow it to be pulled out of the water and those are not landing gear.
I also looked up a number of articles and the Mars is always referred to as a flying boat and not an amphibious aircraft. The final kicker is that BC is retiring it's Martin Mars aircraft and here is a quote from an article explaining the decision;
Because of its size, the Martin Mars can only land on and scoop up water from about 113 bodies of water in B.C.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is already absolutely insane.
Are you saying theft of intellectual property should be a civil matter while theft of real property should be a criminal matter? Why should there be less protection for intellectual property that physical property. They both have monetary value.
The DHS is something that never should've been created.
You would prefer multiple agencies duplicating work, not coordinating operations, not sharing information, leaving gaps between organizations, etc.
I think that too many "studies" set out to prove a hypothesis instead of test a hypothesis. The drive to prove something puts bias into the study and skews the outcome. No one wants to be proven wrong. This is especially important when the measurements are subjective as in many psychology studies.
Once is an anomaly
Twice is a coincidence
Three times is a pattern
How do you know the inner workings of a gateway you have never seen? I agree that such a gateway should be programmed the way you describe but it is possible for a gateway to just forward messages along with no filtering. My point is that filtering can be done at the entry point just as well as the gateway.
All these comments about DHS should be doing other things than dealing with copyright laws are just stupid. By that logic no police officers should be catching burglars because there are murders who have not be caught yet. The police deal with this by having some officers assigned to a homicide squad and others assigned to a robbery squad. The DHS is a huge organization and they have many jobs to do. One of their departments is ICE which has a task of looking into copyright infringement. Just because their most important job is not complete (and never will be) does not mean they can or should neglect their others jobs.
The reproduction and distribution of copyright material is a criminal as well as a civil matter. ICE is tasked with investigating copyright infringement in the US. The fact that they are now under the umbrella of the DHS is just sensationalism.
The Kármán line, or Karman line, lies at an altitude of 100 kilometres (62 mi) above the Earth's sea level, and commonly represents the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space. This definition is accepted by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), which is an international standard setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics. By saing "edge of space" and then "90,000ft" (27.4km) they are making a mockery of the "Edge of space". When has 27.4% towards a goal ever been "close" to a goal? They further exagerate using this artist's rendering. The curvature of the earth would be much less. Here is an actual photo taken at 90,000ft.
In the end 27.4kM is not close to 100km and therefore not close to the edge of space. Sorry but you can't re-define something that has been internationally agreed upon to make your aircraft look better.
I think the issue with this article is that it concentrates too much on networks. It assumes that separating features into different networks is less hackable. Then it states this;
"Each feature of the car is separated on a different network and connected by a gateway,"
Here are two scenarios;
1. All systems run on one network. The entry points to the network are very secure and almost impossible to crack. All entry points only allow specific commands to go through. For example the radio portal will not allow a brake command to pass.
2. All systems run on different networks connected by a gateway. The entry point security is poor and the gateway security is poor. There is no filtering of commands from subsystems.
Which one do you think is more hackable? If one can get in easily and talk between networks easily it is no different than a poorly secured single network.
I think there is as assumption in your statement that I only treat friends with kindness and respect. That assumption is false. I treat everyone kindly and with respect. This is like all those people on Facebook that have thousands of "friends" but have never actually even met or talked to most of them. To me "friend" is a very special title. A friend could call me up at 3AM and ask me to come get them from the side of the road. Would I do that for a desk clerk I met once? No. I don't go through life with the objective of gathering "Friends" I will never meet again.
one who can ask simple questions like, "How you are doing today?"
Too many people ask that question but don't really care what the answer is. If I am in a line of people waiting to check in that kind of empty conversation just wastes time. I think the GP was trying to point out that we aren't all "silver tongued devils" who can talk a clerk into giving us an free upgrade.
Frankly I do not want a personal relationship with a someone I may see only twice during my lifetime.
My car does much better than that.
What else does you car do?
but it does look ahead and understand curves
What does it do when it "understands a curve"?
but the raw data is already available.
The fact that the raw data is there and the computer having the ability to interpret that raw data in any meaningful way is oceans apart. Comparing lane following to object identification is like comparing the game of x's and o's to chess. The complexity of the problems are several orders of magnitude apart.
These systems are actually quite good at some of your list - you might surprised.
Remember the subject of this conversation; lane following and interval maintenance. While that assist driving they are very far from autonomous driving. Lane following is simple in that it uses two painted lines to figure out where the lane is and steers to stay between the lines. It does not figure out if the line curve s ahead and there needs to be a speed reduction to deal with it. Interval maintenance is simple because all it does is puts on the brakes if the interval gets below a minimum. Say you approaching a narrow bridge. The bridge has to be identified. How can you identify a bridge if all the information you have is the position of the left side of the lane, the position of the right side of the lane and the distance to the vehicle in front of you?
Have it be as an Opt-In program then, where they send you a CD, containing a Live version of a modified Linux distro, putting it in your PC
Is it even possible to make one bootable distro that will allow internet access on every different kind of personal computer out there?
Actually, it handles letting other drivers in as long as they don't cut you off dangerously.
Bumper to bumper traffic?
Things that this can not handle in a rural setting;
- lack of lane marker on right
- animals on road
- people turning left from the opposite direction
- people entering from side roads
- intersections
- distinguishing between lane markers and tar strips
- lack of center line
- debris,gravel on road
- potholes
- speed changes due to corners
- narrow bridges
Rural roads are even harder to deal with than freeways.
conditions it won't handle
- changing lanes
- passing
- letting other drivers in
- avoiding debris on the road
- entering/leaving highway
- dealing with construction zones
- avoiding reckless drivers
- lane selection
Lane keeping and distance keeping are only a small part of driving.
To me "social" is talking about personal, meaningful things. Friendly is a mode of pleasant conversion. While acting friendly is part of being social, one does not have to be social to be friendly.
I am definitely not a Millennial and I would love this service. If I could get off the shuttle and go directly to my room I would be in heaven.
anti-social behind the monitor type Millennials don't have to talk to actual people.
Have you really ever been "social" with a desk clerk? When I am checking in I am usually tired and want to lie down. Being "social" is the last thing on my mind.
she can't even make a fucking phone call if there's a chance company X has a "WebChat!"
I love web chat. Here are a list of things I like about web chat
- I can do several things while I web chat. I am not stuck waiting listening to hold music.
- I can re-read what was said in case I missed something.
- I can edit my message for clarity.
- I can usually get a transcript for later reference.
To me, text chat is just as social as voice.
Without the military the scientific research would be owned by some other country. If one becomes a rich weak country one becomes a ripe target.
My original statement still stands; 150 cycles is not "stable". It is just less unstable than previous attempts. When that can show 2000-3000 cycles then we can talk about "stable".
You're asking too much from a research project.
I think you ask too little. What get me are quotes like this;
The team is looking at a price point of $25,000 for an EV battery range of 300 miles, which would be competitive with a 40 mpg gasmobile.
They haven't even shown that their battery will last six months at a charge cycle a day. As there is no mention of it I doubt they have built a full EV scale battery yet. There is a huge gulf between what they have and what they are "looking at". If they haven't even done long term cycle studies they surly have not looked into the cost of mass production. How can they come up with battery costs? Had they stopped at what they had proven then I would not be so critical. By defecting attention from what they actually have done to what they what you to think they have done sounds fishy to me.
I have to tell my math story again.
There is an economist, and engineer on a train going to Glasgow.
The economist looked out the window and sees some sheep with black wool and says "Wow, all of the sheep in Scotland are black".
The engineer looks out the window and says "Some of the sheep in Scotland are black".
The mathematician looks out and says "There exists in Scotland at lest one field where there are sheep that are black on at lest one side".
All they could see was one field and one side of each sheep. Anything else is not proven.
There is a huge difference between a "hater" and a "skeptic". Doubling from a absolutely useless number of cycles to a completely useless number if cycles is significant but not useful. I like reading stuff in the load but touting this kind of improvement as something that will revolutionizes electric vehicle pricing is much too soon. It appears to be a marketing ploy to gain investment in a sham. The sooner shams are expose the sooner investment goes into areas of real possibility.
Not amphibious
Because of its size, the Martin Mars can only land on and scoop up water from about 113 bodies of water in B.C.
If you look closely at the Mars maintenance picture you will see a couple of things. First the tread on the wheels under the aircraft are quite aggressive. I have never seen that kind of tread on landing gear. Second the wing pontoons are supported by scaffolding and not wheels. My theory is that the Mars has the facility to attach dollies to the air frame to allow it to be pulled out of the water and those are not landing gear.
I also looked up a number of articles and the Mars is always referred to as a flying boat and not an amphibious aircraft. The final kicker is that BC is retiring it's Martin Mars aircraft and here is a quote from an article explaining the decision;
Because of its size, the Martin Mars can only land on and scoop up water from about 113 bodies of water in B.C.
The Martin Mars is not amphibious.