I had a garage door opener that started to have problems. The door is rather heavy, and it jerks a bit as it opens. The opener is a double-speed Genie model. Occasionally it would think something was wrong when opening and stop. Unfortunately, there was no option to turn off the double-speed mode. Of course, they also sold a regular-speed model that was exactly the same except for one change on the circuit board. A little searching turned up the solution: Clip the resistor labeled "double-speed" and it cuts the speed in half.
Now the door opens more slowly without any jerking, and it never stops half-way up.
This is all about producing new content with old characters. Sometimes using a replacement is the only option, as the current actor is dead or no longer fits the part (like new episodes of the original Star Trek or old Doctor Who). Or perhaps the Disney model of making low-budget direct-to-video sequels is another application.
The important point for the entertainment industry now is to anticipate the technology and to add the future use into the contract negotiations now.
Human driving is a mix of both methods. When you're on a street you're familiar with, habit takes over, and you barely notice what you're doing. On an unfamiliar street, you're much more active as a driver. At some level, humans require driving situations to be predefined, in that they need to match a familiar template. Road designs are all standardized.
In other words, the more information you have about the driving conditions, the simpler the problem. If you have a map, then you need to watch for anything that deviates from that map. If you don't have a map, then you have to process the scene to generate the map on the fly. (And by "map," I mean the entire design of the roadway, not just the traditional GPS-correlated road layout.)
I thought that Amazon was now collecting sales taxes in most states. Wikipedia says Amazon only collets in 26 states. Google tells me that 5 other states don't have sales tax. So yes, Amazon bypasses sales tax in 19 states.
You identified one key advantage Walmart has: Convenient returns. It's much easier to return to a store than to ship a return. If I were in charge of etail at Walmart, you can bet that would at the top of the list to advertise.
Walmart believes "Customers want the accessibility and immediacy of a physical store." That is why their online business is doomed to fail. Yes, sometimes you just want it right now, but then you'll drive to Walmart or whatever local store will have it and buy it. But often you want the real online experience with unlimited selections and no hassle with trips. Why would I buy something online and then drive to pick it up?
Yes, Walmart has a huge and efficient distribution system, but can they really leverage that for online sales? When stocking stores, they ship large quantities to each store. For online sales, it's small quantities of a much larger variety. You have to support the customer who is the only one in the area buying that item just as well as you do the customer who buys the most popular item. I doubt their distribution system can adapt to that model.
Walmart can try, but in order to beat Amazon at this point, they don't just have to match them, they have to be better. I don't think they even understand what better looks like, let alone have any way of getting there.
Well, being Slashdot, people will use the initialism in their comments, and others will ask what it means, so having it spelled out isn't a problem. It's much better than the summaries that use an initialism without explaining it. There have been many that did that, often with much more obscure references.
Of course, the real answer is that in most cases the summaries are cut-and-paste copies from the article.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. If you focus on the testing, the result is something (or someone) that is good at taking tests. This is particularly bad when there are aspects of what you're doing that aren't (or can't be) tested.
In the case of emissions, part of the issue is that the tests aren't realistic. It sounds like the government should require a validation test where they monitor the emissions while the car is actually being driven. The manufacturer would pay for the testing, and the government would spot-test a few cars of each model every year, in addition to the regular emissions testing.
Or leave the system as it is, but then pay bounties funded by fines for anyone that proves the emissions of a given car model don't live up to the standard in real-world situations.
Isn't that exactly how locomotives work? The popularity of diesel-electric locomotives makes it even more surprising that we don't see the same technology in trucking.
I'm sure the engineers have looked at it and have some good reasons, but I would like to know what they are.
I remember when TiVo first came out. ReplayTV came out at almost the same time. ReplayTV was more expensive, but had lifetime listings included. Ultimately that proved to be a bad marketing decision, and would have probably led to the company's demise if the lawsuits hadn't effectively killed it first.
ReplayTV had already upset the networks with it's 30-second skip button, but the feature that led to major lawsuits was the automatic commercial skip.
It's a shame they didn't both survive and compete on features. I wonder what TiVo would have come up with by now with more competitive pressure?
Nonsense. Did you actually listen to the interview? It's in the context of hypermilers--setting the record for the longest possible drive on one charge--not real or rated range under normal conditions.
The current record is 550 miles. That's 885km. And that as on a 85D, not the new 90D, which would put the expected result from the same test at 937km. Getting to 1000 in two years means going from 90 to 96 KWH in the battery, all else being equal. Considering that he's already stated that he expects a 5% improvement in the batteries every year, we would expect the 95D to be released next year, and the 100D the next, so that's right on schedule.
The range increase he has predicted is 5-10% per year. The 1000km number is for hypermilers who figure out the optimal speed and ideal conditions, then drive all day at 22mph or whatever for the bragging rights.
The real maximum range right now is around 300 miles, and in 3 years, it could easily be 350 miles. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bump when the Gigafactory comes online, as they may be able to build more tightly-packed custom batteries to increase density or otherwise incorporate new technology.
Anyone following Tesla knows full well that they are making engineering improvements every week, so every car is somewhat obsolete by the time you get it. But the cars are also so far ahead of anything else out there that there's no comparison.
Autopilot doesn't use the network. It uses radar and a camera to track the paint on the road. If the paint is faded, the sun reflects off it wrong, it gets confused with old paint, or whatnot, then it tells you to take control. I would expect to only need to take the wheel for 1% of the driving, but you would need to be ready to do so for 100% of the driving to be safe.
I'm sure there will be people who set out on a lonely highway and go to sleep, only to wake up when the car comes to an emergency stop on the side of the road because it decided it needed a human driver.
He was clear in the interview that he thought it would take another 1-3 years before it would be legal, depending on the jurisdiction.
I read a review of the beta Autopilot feature expected to be released next month, and it's also illegal. It lets you take your hands off the steering wheel, which is illegal in some states. (I know you can be cited for it in Massachusetts; a state trooper said he used that to ticket drivers on cell phones if they gestured when he was looking.)
I'm not selling phones. I want the people selling phones to do it. The system I described would, in some ways, be like the browser selection that the EU forced on Microsoft Windows.
What I want is a phone with just one pre-installed app: Setup. This setup app would recommend apps for various things like: App store, email, web, texting, contacts, camera, music, ebooks, etc. It would have recommendations for each, of course, but you could decide what makes sense for you.
They could still recommend all the same junk that they pre-install today, but without annoying their customers as much, while still getting some revenue from the app pushers.
This would also mean they wouldn't get complaints about using up so much of the built-in storage for the OS.
The problem isn't the requirement to include Google's other apps. The problem is that they're non-removable. If new phones came with just as much junk pre-installed, but if it were installed as if the user had downloaded and installed the apps themselves, then it wouldn't be a big deal.
True. My point was comparing IPv4 with a native address vs. IPv4 through a NAT.
Taking your story backwards, if the FBI intercepted messages with ISIS and recorded the network information:
Using a real IPv4 address: They get the account name and address from the ISP, then get a search warrant to find evidence and determine who in the home is the culprit.
Using a real IPv6 address: Same as above, only now they may be able to tell which computer in the house was used, making their job easier.
Using a NAT IPv4 address: The ISP is unable to tell the FBI which account is associated with the IP address. The FBI has to use other techniques to eventually determine who the bad guy is.
Of course, in the above example, the NSA would likely have a box inside the ISP that logs everything interesting, but if instead of the FBI, it was the RIAA, MPAA, or someone like that, they would be stumped.
You're missing the point. If you're accessing some IPv4 resource, and someone notes that the resource is being accessed, how hard is it to determine who was accessing the resource? In the old system, it's a simple matter of logging the IP address, and then using the courts to turn that into an account name. With NAT, you have to log the IP address, the source port, and the time, and then that only works if the ISP is keeping a log of every connection through the NAT, which is rather unlikely.
In other words, going through NAT provides some modicum of privacy. It's a far cry from using TOR, but it's something.
Of course, if you're accessing an IPv6 resource, then tracking by IP should work just like it has in the past.
The impact here is for any new ISP--they'll have to offer IPv4 through NAT. While that will be a pain for a small number of uses, for the most part, it means it's a lot harder to track specific accesses back to a given account. Copyright trolls will hate this.
The biggest problem for regular use is providing remote access. If you're used to being able to ssh into your home system or run some remote desktop when away from home, having to go through NAT presents problems.
ISPs will like that NAT provides a technical impediment to home servers, though this is exactly the sort of thing consumers will miss.
One nice benefit of having NAT through an ISP may be the elimination of the continuous stream of port scans and login attempts.
My guess is that what happened is that Engineering was told to do something that turned out to be impossible. They built a diesel engine and determined what was the maximum performance and efficiency they could achieve. Then management told them they needed to hit those numbers while still passing emissions requirements. Eventually they realized that the only solution to meet the requirements was to game the tests.
Right. The court ruled that the copyright was never valid. Now the question is whether Warner will have to repay millions in royalties that they extorted with their false claims.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a garage door opener that started to have problems. The door is rather heavy, and it jerks a bit as it opens. The opener is a double-speed Genie model. Occasionally it would think something was wrong when opening and stop. Unfortunately, there was no option to turn off the double-speed mode. Of course, they also sold a regular-speed model that was exactly the same except for one change on the circuit board. A little searching turned up the solution: Clip the resistor labeled "double-speed" and it cuts the speed in half.
Now the door opens more slowly without any jerking, and it never stops half-way up.
This is all about producing new content with old characters. Sometimes using a replacement is the only option, as the current actor is dead or no longer fits the part (like new episodes of the original Star Trek or old Doctor Who). Or perhaps the Disney model of making low-budget direct-to-video sequels is another application.
The important point for the entertainment industry now is to anticipate the technology and to add the future use into the contract negotiations now.
Human driving is a mix of both methods. When you're on a street you're familiar with, habit takes over, and you barely notice what you're doing. On an unfamiliar street, you're much more active as a driver. At some level, humans require driving situations to be predefined, in that they need to match a familiar template. Road designs are all standardized.
In other words, the more information you have about the driving conditions, the simpler the problem. If you have a map, then you need to watch for anything that deviates from that map. If you don't have a map, then you have to process the scene to generate the map on the fly. (And by "map," I mean the entire design of the roadway, not just the traditional GPS-correlated road layout.)
I thought that Amazon was now collecting sales taxes in most states. Wikipedia says Amazon only collets in 26 states. Google tells me that 5 other states don't have sales tax. So yes, Amazon bypasses sales tax in 19 states.
You identified one key advantage Walmart has: Convenient returns. It's much easier to return to a store than to ship a return. If I were in charge of etail at Walmart, you can bet that would at the top of the list to advertise.
Walmart believes "Customers want the accessibility and immediacy of a physical store." That is why their online business is doomed to fail. Yes, sometimes you just want it right now, but then you'll drive to Walmart or whatever local store will have it and buy it. But often you want the real online experience with unlimited selections and no hassle with trips. Why would I buy something online and then drive to pick it up?
Yes, Walmart has a huge and efficient distribution system, but can they really leverage that for online sales? When stocking stores, they ship large quantities to each store. For online sales, it's small quantities of a much larger variety. You have to support the customer who is the only one in the area buying that item just as well as you do the customer who buys the most popular item. I doubt their distribution system can adapt to that model.
Walmart can try, but in order to beat Amazon at this point, they don't just have to match them, they have to be better. I don't think they even understand what better looks like, let alone have any way of getting there.
Well, being Slashdot, people will use the initialism in their comments, and others will ask what it means, so having it spelled out isn't a problem. It's much better than the summaries that use an initialism without explaining it. There have been many that did that, often with much more obscure references.
Of course, the real answer is that in most cases the summaries are cut-and-paste copies from the article.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. If you focus on the testing, the result is something (or someone) that is good at taking tests. This is particularly bad when there are aspects of what you're doing that aren't (or can't be) tested.
In the case of emissions, part of the issue is that the tests aren't realistic. It sounds like the government should require a validation test where they monitor the emissions while the car is actually being driven. The manufacturer would pay for the testing, and the government would spot-test a few cars of each model every year, in addition to the regular emissions testing.
Or leave the system as it is, but then pay bounties funded by fines for anyone that proves the emissions of a given car model don't live up to the standard in real-world situations.
Isn't that exactly how locomotives work? The popularity of diesel-electric locomotives makes it even more surprising that we don't see the same technology in trucking.
I'm sure the engineers have looked at it and have some good reasons, but I would like to know what they are.
I remember when TiVo first came out. ReplayTV came out at almost the same time. ReplayTV was more expensive, but had lifetime listings included. Ultimately that proved to be a bad marketing decision, and would have probably led to the company's demise if the lawsuits hadn't effectively killed it first.
ReplayTV had already upset the networks with it's 30-second skip button, but the feature that led to major lawsuits was the automatic commercial skip.
It's a shame they didn't both survive and compete on features. I wonder what TiVo would have come up with by now with more competitive pressure?
So why didn't Honda buy one and test it themselves? You would think they would try to analyze and reverse-engineer it.
Nonsense. Did you actually listen to the interview? It's in the context of hypermilers--setting the record for the longest possible drive on one charge--not real or rated range under normal conditions.
http://insideevs.com/tesla-mod...
The current record is 550 miles. That's 885km. And that as on a 85D, not the new 90D, which would put the expected result from the same test at 937km. Getting to 1000 in two years means going from 90 to 96 KWH in the battery, all else being equal. Considering that he's already stated that he expects a 5% improvement in the batteries every year, we would expect the 95D to be released next year, and the 100D the next, so that's right on schedule.
The range increase he has predicted is 5-10% per year. The 1000km number is for hypermilers who figure out the optimal speed and ideal conditions, then drive all day at 22mph or whatever for the bragging rights.
The real maximum range right now is around 300 miles, and in 3 years, it could easily be 350 miles. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bump when the Gigafactory comes online, as they may be able to build more tightly-packed custom batteries to increase density or otherwise incorporate new technology.
Anyone following Tesla knows full well that they are making engineering improvements every week, so every car is somewhat obsolete by the time you get it. But the cars are also so far ahead of anything else out there that there's no comparison.
Autopilot doesn't use the network. It uses radar and a camera to track the paint on the road. If the paint is faded, the sun reflects off it wrong, it gets confused with old paint, or whatnot, then it tells you to take control. I would expect to only need to take the wheel for 1% of the driving, but you would need to be ready to do so for 100% of the driving to be safe.
I'm sure there will be people who set out on a lonely highway and go to sleep, only to wake up when the car comes to an emergency stop on the side of the road because it decided it needed a human driver.
He was clear in the interview that he thought it would take another 1-3 years before it would be legal, depending on the jurisdiction.
I read a review of the beta Autopilot feature expected to be released next month, and it's also illegal. It lets you take your hands off the steering wheel, which is illegal in some states. (I know you can be cited for it in Massachusetts; a state trooper said he used that to ticket drivers on cell phones if they gestured when he was looking.)
I'm not selling phones. I want the people selling phones to do it. The system I described would, in some ways, be like the browser selection that the EU forced on Microsoft Windows.
What I want is a phone with just one pre-installed app: Setup. This setup app would recommend apps for various things like: App store, email, web, texting, contacts, camera, music, ebooks, etc. It would have recommendations for each, of course, but you could decide what makes sense for you.
They could still recommend all the same junk that they pre-install today, but without annoying their customers as much, while still getting some revenue from the app pushers.
This would also mean they wouldn't get complaints about using up so much of the built-in storage for the OS.
The problem isn't the requirement to include Google's other apps. The problem is that they're non-removable. If new phones came with just as much junk pre-installed, but if it were installed as if the user had downloaded and installed the apps themselves, then it wouldn't be a big deal.
True. My point was comparing IPv4 with a native address vs. IPv4 through a NAT.
Taking your story backwards, if the FBI intercepted messages with ISIS and recorded the network information:
Using a real IPv4 address: They get the account name and address from the ISP, then get a search warrant to find evidence and determine who in the home is the culprit.
Using a real IPv6 address: Same as above, only now they may be able to tell which computer in the house was used, making their job easier.
Using a NAT IPv4 address: The ISP is unable to tell the FBI which account is associated with the IP address. The FBI has to use other techniques to eventually determine who the bad guy is.
Of course, in the above example, the NSA would likely have a box inside the ISP that logs everything interesting, but if instead of the FBI, it was the RIAA, MPAA, or someone like that, they would be stumped.
You're missing the point. If you're accessing some IPv4 resource, and someone notes that the resource is being accessed, how hard is it to determine who was accessing the resource? In the old system, it's a simple matter of logging the IP address, and then using the courts to turn that into an account name. With NAT, you have to log the IP address, the source port, and the time, and then that only works if the ISP is keeping a log of every connection through the NAT, which is rather unlikely.
In other words, going through NAT provides some modicum of privacy. It's a far cry from using TOR, but it's something.
Of course, if you're accessing an IPv6 resource, then tracking by IP should work just like it has in the past.
Tesla makes a wonderful mid-life crisis car.
One difference here is that the technique they used was specifically illegal, which is not the case in some of the other examples (cycling excluded).
I was hoping someone would say that!
The impact here is for any new ISP--they'll have to offer IPv4 through NAT. While that will be a pain for a small number of uses, for the most part, it means it's a lot harder to track specific accesses back to a given account. Copyright trolls will hate this.
The biggest problem for regular use is providing remote access. If you're used to being able to ssh into your home system or run some remote desktop when away from home, having to go through NAT presents problems.
ISPs will like that NAT provides a technical impediment to home servers, though this is exactly the sort of thing consumers will miss.
One nice benefit of having NAT through an ISP may be the elimination of the continuous stream of port scans and login attempts.
My guess is that what happened is that Engineering was told to do something that turned out to be impossible. They built a diesel engine and determined what was the maximum performance and efficiency they could achieve. Then management told them they needed to hit those numbers while still passing emissions requirements. Eventually they realized that the only solution to meet the requirements was to game the tests.
Right. The court ruled that the copyright was never valid. Now the question is whether Warner will have to repay millions in royalties that they extorted with their false claims.