They seemed to have completely missed failure analysis - what happens when the sensor fails, what is the contingency plan? If it's the pilot, how exactly is the pilot supposed to mitigate the failure, which should be in the training materials "what do so when MCAS fails and is fighting the pilot to crash the plane". In this case however there may not have been anything the pilots could do (i.e. MCAS will eventually overpower the pilot) because it seems nobody at Boeing even considered that MCAS sensor may fail (hence no failure analysis).
It seem it doesn't work as well as you think: https://vancouversun.com/news/... Proves my earlier point of posting signs warning users of cameras decreasing the effectiveness of the fine system.
Of course, you could use more drastic measures, go Singapore style are start using corporal punishment, of even more draconian and cut off fingers used to text while driving. I'm sure that would have some incremental success (you don't see many people spitting gum on streets of Singapore, do you), but do you really want to go there?
But don't worry, I know no western politician stands a chance allowing a private company to make money, even if it would save lives. Federal Medicare officially admits there is abover $5B worth of fraud occurring each year, but until Obama there was only 3 full time people with little budget allocated to it, while constrained to laws which forced Medicate to pay all claims with 30 days, verified or not. Obama increased the budget significantly, but still just a drop in an ocean. Try to pass a law that any company which can crack down on Medicate fraud can keep 50% of the savings, and you'll never get it passed. Today's social movements prefer to loose $5B of taxpayers money rather than losing $2B and paying $1.5B to some private company. Welcome to the 21st century.
Having more cops around costs the city money, so higher taxes. If you think you can offset it by the ticket revenues, then you'll have to raise the fines as cops issue less tickets per hour than an automated camera. Then if revenue declines because less people text and drive, you have to lay them off. Outsourcing it to a private (yes, for profit) company brings money in rather than out and let's the private company take on the risks (being a company, they can shift some cameras to different cities, not so easy to send the extra cop to another state).
As for disconnect from time delay, I agree however I think you overestimate this impact. Getting a ticket in the mail a week or two later would absolutely curb people's dangerous (to others) habits.
Not as effective when signaged and advertised, people will still text and drive where they know there are no cameras. If they are camouflaged, mobile, and nobody knows where they are, people are less likely to text and drive everywhere.
That said, I think I get where you're coming from, the prevailing social justice sentiment that it's better to not save lives than save lives but allow someone to make money in the process, even in cases like this where the money would clearly come only from people endangering others.
See, this is why my sutions works best. No distracted citizens. Privately operated network of well camouflaged mobile cameras. I make money, city makes money, roads become safer, win-win-win. I take the risk of suddenly people no longer texting and driving, or never speeding, so no risk to public funding either.
Mass short flights with rotor technology will never materialize. Companies will build a vehicle capable of such flights, maybe even relatively safely, but they will not be allowed in cities. Short flights means low altitude. Imagine tens of thousands of these things flying at low altitudes over San Francisco. Even if you figure out virtual corridors and traffic rules, imagine having multiple highways directly over your home. Physical highways often are separated by noise and crash barriers. Unless the city moves underground, people will not accept busy highways just hundreds of feet above residential areas.
Now, if some day we invent anti-gravity, so that such taxis can silently ascend to 30,000ft for a 5 mile trip, sure, but until then, this is less feasible for mass deployment than Elon's networks of tunnels.
Every 5 minutes? I cross a busy, but only one lane in each direction, street a few times a week during rush hour. During just one crossing, I see many people using their phones, usually i can spot them because they weave out of their lane.
If the government would contract me, I'd be happy to setup a company which takes video of traffic, finds people who use cell phones, then issues a ticket to them via mail - with a web portal to go see your video and pay. I will even give 10% of the tickets to the government, so they get to reduce texting and driving and it will cost them nothing, the 10% will cover any administrative costs involved with integration with their emv databases. I'll also make sure the cameras are mobile and well camouflaged so no problems with people causing accidents because they see them. Oh, if you are serious about enforcing speeding, happy to share 20% of all speeding fines (I anticipate a lot larger volume of fines if I can start ticketing at +5mph). With video evidence, court challenges will be rare and usually will not succeed (for speeding I'll have a rigorous calibration process and schedule). Any interested municipalities?
First, even in third world countries they use automation today, or do you really believe you people hand stitch t-shirts in a sweat shop somewhere?
Second, your argument just substitutes dirt cheap labor for automation, which is actually worse, since automation allows one worker to replace many workers, hence shrinking the number of laborers needed, while cheap labor just replaces them all. So, if you were right, everyone threate by automation shouldn't worry, they'll be replaced by someone in a third world county?
The workforce gets indirect benefits by affordable goods. Imagine what good would cost if there was no automation. Most people would never own a car if all cars were manufactured without any automation. Your t-shirts would cost $100 each, because it would cost that much to collect and process cotton manually, then saw the t-shirt by hand with a needle and thread.
They hired 150 people out of a pool which grows at 1000 per year, so assuming 40 year careers and sustained growth, should be at around 40,000 people. How is that a rage draw?
What you are missing is that most people don't need instant refueling. If the EV starts up with 300 miles of range every morning, most people will never need to recharge during the day. Next morning, 300 miles ready to go from overnight charging.
We have 2 EV's, no more ICE cars at our home. My wife has never, ever charged outside of the house. I only charged outside of the house when on long distance trips, and the longest of those was a round trip coast to coast, 6600 mile trip.
In summary, the great majority of people don't need instant refueling when their car starts each day with 200+ miles "in the tank" (330 miles for long range Model 3)
I think this was true when EV's had sub 100 miles range. With EV's approaching or even exceeding 300 miles of rated range today, even if in the winter you get 200+ miles. I drive an EV with official EPA 259 mile rated range. I never charge it past 224 miles, never have any range issues. I drove it across the US in the fall with no more planning than I would have done with an ICE car, granted I picked a highway (I-90) with superchargers every 100-150 miles but I would have picked the same highway with an ICE car anyways..Did ~6600 miles on that trip - never once worried about the range. I slowed down a couple of times to speed limit for few miles to not push the range too far - maybe that is the untold secret of EV's, usually slowing down reduces the per mile consumption, so when you are just a little short, just slow down a little. In 6 years of driving an EV, I only altered my driving plans twice due to car's range and charger availability, both times were a while back (before 2015) and today the same area has fast chargers so it would not be an issue anymore. Oh, I used to keep an ICE car as backup, got rid of it in Dec 2016 - all EV household now, would not want to go back. Nothing like starting a day with 200+ miles of range "in the tank", every day.
To your point though, if you drive more than 200 miles a day and there are no fast chargers around, EV may not be the best choice. HOWEVER, an average US daily commute is 42 miles, and fast chargers are springing up around the US at an accelerating pace, so there are less and less people who will have this problem, and this is why Toyota was wrong and now falling behind.
So you're saying it would have been better for the doctor to not tell the video consult patient that he's about to die, rather tell him to make an in-person appointment knowing the patient is likely not going to live long enough to make the appointment?!? The patient in this case died the next day, so even if they had an appointment that day they wouldn't have made it.
The article talks about power cords, which are not sold "with a server" either. You could argue that cooling fans inside the server are more tied to the server than the power cord which often is purchases of the server rack than a server.
Ah, but here is the problem, what should the refund be? If I bought a Tesla with the intent for it to drive my kids to school, or to drive my old parents around using Full Self Driving, should I be able to return the car and get 100% refund? Or should Tesla take responsibility for that by paying for a full time driver for the reminder of my ownership of my car?
Of course, they are offering no refunds whatsoever, but if they were, the problem is in assessing the liability for their screwup.
If you're worried about power plugs, you should be worried about anything that plugs in, or even is battery powered. An office heater or fan, desk lamp, etc can spy on your power signature almost as well as the extension cord used to power things. A battery powered headset can spy wirelessly too. You could even take it a step further and suspect shoes made in China, they could contain kinetically charged batteries with spying equipment.
So, if you want to be paranoid, you have to ban everything made in China.
Doesn't FB EULA basically boil down to: 1. You give us the right to collect everything you give us, everything we can collect from your phone, tablet, or PC 2. You give us unlimited rights to use any information we gather on you without any compensation 2. You give up any right to sue us over any damages you may feel we caused
I bet you can look people up by their FB password too, though that's probably a premium (read "paid") feature they sell to "partners" only.
Is this a new purview of the French government, to dispense fiscal justice? I assume there will be no juries or trials, making the French fiscal justice system a dictatorship?
One can't answer your question unless you specify "legal in jurisdiction X". For example Europe has GDPR, USA or Canada or Mexico or China does not, but they have other laws.
So I guess I would answer your question with "Legal where?" and a disclaimer "IANAL".;-)
The only reason to make a statement like this, which effectively boils down to "Apple's value is going increase, but you have to take it on pure faith because I just can't give you any concrete reasons why", is if you're desperately trying to uphold investor confidence in light of Apple's image fading as a premium technology leader. No doubt this was attempt was fueled by all the announcements from the rest of the industry about the foldable devices, which look so much "cooler and leading edge" than Apple products.
Maybe Amazon had their fill of this New York charm they speak of. Why would any company want to establish an HQ somewhere where they'll be constantly attacked, be it by a vocal minority who would rather be uneducated and unemployed than have someone make money on their work. Too many negative sensational headlines and people who don't read past the headline. In the today's age of social outrage, the negative publicity is not worth it for a global company. They'd rather stay out of the headlines and continue to sell to New Yorkers as customers.
Slashdot Mirror
They seemed to have completely missed failure analysis - what happens when the sensor fails, what is the contingency plan? If it's the pilot, how exactly is the pilot supposed to mitigate the failure, which should be in the training materials "what do so when MCAS fails and is fighting the pilot to crash the plane". In this case however there may not have been anything the pilots could do (i.e. MCAS will eventually overpower the pilot) because it seems nobody at Boeing even considered that MCAS sensor may fail (hence no failure analysis).
It seem it doesn't work as well as you think:
https://vancouversun.com/news/...
Proves my earlier point of posting signs warning users of cameras decreasing the effectiveness of the fine system.
Of course, you could use more drastic measures, go Singapore style are start using corporal punishment, of even more draconian and cut off fingers used to text while driving. I'm sure that would have some incremental success (you don't see many people spitting gum on streets of Singapore, do you), but do you really want to go there?
But don't worry, I know no western politician stands a chance allowing a private company to make money, even if it would save lives. Federal Medicare officially admits there is abover $5B worth of fraud occurring each year, but until Obama there was only 3 full time people with little budget allocated to it, while constrained to laws which forced Medicate to pay all claims with 30 days, verified or not. Obama increased the budget significantly, but still just a drop in an ocean. Try to pass a law that any company which can crack down on Medicate fraud can keep 50% of the savings, and you'll never get it passed. Today's social movements prefer to loose $5B of taxpayers money rather than losing $2B and paying $1.5B to some private company. Welcome to the 21st century.
Having more cops around costs the city money, so higher taxes. If you think you can offset it by the ticket revenues, then you'll have to raise the fines as cops issue less tickets per hour than an automated camera. Then if revenue declines because less people text and drive, you have to lay them off. Outsourcing it to a private (yes, for profit) company brings money in rather than out and let's the private company take on the risks (being a company, they can shift some cameras to different cities, not so easy to send the extra cop to another state).
As for disconnect from time delay, I agree however I think you overestimate this impact. Getting a ticket in the mail a week or two later would absolutely curb people's dangerous (to others) habits.
Not as effective when signaged and advertised, people will still text and drive where they know there are no cameras. If they are camouflaged, mobile, and nobody knows where they are, people are less likely to text and drive everywhere.
That said, I think I get where you're coming from, the prevailing social justice sentiment that it's better to not save lives than save lives but allow someone to make money in the process, even in cases like this where the money would clearly come only from people endangering others.
See, this is why my sutions works best. No distracted citizens. Privately operated network of well camouflaged mobile cameras. I make money, city makes money, roads become safer, win-win-win. I take the risk of suddenly people no longer texting and driving, or never speeding, so no risk to public funding either.
Mass short flights with rotor technology will never materialize. Companies will build a vehicle capable of such flights, maybe even relatively safely, but they will not be allowed in cities. Short flights means low altitude. Imagine tens of thousands of these things flying at low altitudes over San Francisco. Even if you figure out virtual corridors and traffic rules, imagine having multiple highways directly over your home. Physical highways often are separated by noise and crash barriers. Unless the city moves underground, people will not accept busy highways just hundreds of feet above residential areas.
Now, if some day we invent anti-gravity, so that such taxis can silently ascend to 30,000ft for a 5 mile trip, sure, but until then, this is less feasible for mass deployment than Elon's networks of tunnels.
Every 5 minutes? I cross a busy, but only one lane in each direction, street a few times a week during rush hour. During just one crossing, I see many people using their phones, usually i can spot them because they weave out of their lane.
If the government would contract me, I'd be happy to setup a company which takes video of traffic, finds people who use cell phones, then issues a ticket to them via mail - with a web portal to go see your video and pay. I will even give 10% of the tickets to the government, so they get to reduce texting and driving and it will cost them nothing, the 10% will cover any administrative costs involved with integration with their emv databases. I'll also make sure the cameras are mobile and well camouflaged so no problems with people causing accidents because they see them. Oh, if you are serious about enforcing speeding, happy to share 20% of all speeding fines (I anticipate a lot larger volume of fines if I can start ticketing at +5mph). With video evidence, court challenges will be rare and usually will not succeed (for speeding I'll have a rigorous calibration process and schedule). Any interested municipalities?
First, even in third world countries they use automation today, or do you really believe you people hand stitch t-shirts in a sweat shop somewhere?
Second, your argument just substitutes dirt cheap labor for automation, which is actually worse, since automation allows one worker to replace many workers, hence shrinking the number of laborers needed, while cheap labor just replaces them all. So, if you were right, everyone threate by automation shouldn't worry, they'll be replaced by someone in a third world county?
The workforce gets indirect benefits by affordable goods. Imagine what good would cost if there was no automation. Most people would never own a car if all cars were manufactured without any automation. Your t-shirts would cost $100 each, because it would cost that much to collect and process cotton manually, then saw the t-shirt by hand with a needle and thread.
They hired 150 people out of a pool which grows at 1000 per year, so assuming 40 year careers and sustained growth, should be at around 40,000 people. How is that a rage draw?
What you are missing is that most people don't need instant refueling. If the EV starts up with 300 miles of range every morning, most people will never need to recharge during the day. Next morning, 300 miles ready to go from overnight charging.
We have 2 EV's, no more ICE cars at our home. My wife has never, ever charged outside of the house. I only charged outside of the house when on long distance trips, and the longest of those was a round trip coast to coast, 6600 mile trip.
In summary, the great majority of people don't need instant refueling when their car starts each day with 200+ miles "in the tank" (330 miles for long range Model 3)
I think this was true when EV's had sub 100 miles range. With EV's approaching or even exceeding 300 miles of rated range today, even if in the winter you get 200+ miles. I drive an EV with official EPA 259 mile rated range. I never charge it past 224 miles, never have any range issues. I drove it across the US in the fall with no more planning than I would have done with an ICE car, granted I picked a highway (I-90) with superchargers every 100-150 miles but I would have picked the same highway with an ICE car anyways..Did ~6600 miles on that trip - never once worried about the range. I slowed down a couple of times to speed limit for few miles to not push the range too far - maybe that is the untold secret of EV's, usually slowing down reduces the per mile consumption, so when you are just a little short, just slow down a little. In 6 years of driving an EV, I only altered my driving plans twice due to car's range and charger availability, both times were a while back (before 2015) and today the same area has fast chargers so it would not be an issue anymore. Oh, I used to keep an ICE car as backup, got rid of it in Dec 2016 - all EV household now, would not want to go back. Nothing like starting a day with 200+ miles of range "in the tank", every day.
To your point though, if you drive more than 200 miles a day and there are no fast chargers around, EV may not be the best choice. HOWEVER, an average US daily commute is 42 miles, and fast chargers are springing up around the US at an accelerating pace, so there are less and less people who will have this problem, and this is why Toyota was wrong and now falling behind.
Sounds like a helical version of this: http://www.deicon.com/tuned-ac...
So you're saying it would have been better for the doctor to not tell the video consult patient that he's about to die, rather tell him to make an in-person appointment knowing the patient is likely not going to live long enough to make the appointment?!? The patient in this case died the next day, so even if they had an appointment that day they wouldn't have made it.
The article talks about power cords, which are not sold "with a server" either. You could argue that cooling fans inside the server are more tied to the server than the power cord which often is purchases of the server rack than a server.
Ah, but here is the problem, what should the refund be? If I bought a Tesla with the intent for it to drive my kids to school, or to drive my old parents around using Full Self Driving, should I be able to return the car and get 100% refund? Or should Tesla take responsibility for that by paying for a full time driver for the reminder of my ownership of my car?
Of course, they are offering no refunds whatsoever, but if they were, the problem is in assessing the liability for their screwup.
If you're worried about power plugs, you should be worried about anything that plugs in, or even is battery powered. An office heater or fan, desk lamp, etc can spy on your power signature almost as well as the extension cord used to power things. A battery powered headset can spy wirelessly too. You could even take it a step further and suspect shoes made in China, they could contain kinetically charged batteries with spying equipment.
So, if you want to be paranoid, you have to ban everything made in China.
Doesn't FB EULA basically boil down to:
1. You give us the right to collect everything you give us, everything we can collect from your phone, tablet, or PC
2. You give us unlimited rights to use any information we gather on you without any compensation
2. You give up any right to sue us over any damages you may feel we caused
I bet you can look people up by their FB password too, though that's probably a premium (read "paid") feature they sell to "partners" only.
"Fiscal justice" as a goal is new. Probably related to "social justice".
Is this a new purview of the French government, to dispense fiscal justice? I assume there will be no juries or trials, making the French fiscal justice system a dictatorship?
One can't answer your question unless you specify "legal in jurisdiction X". For example Europe has GDPR, USA or Canada or Mexico or China does not, but they have other laws.
So I guess I would answer your question with "Legal where?" and a disclaimer "IANAL". ;-)
Setting a pin to 0000 is basically making a choice to not use the PIN - easier than changing software to not have a pin at all.
He doesn't sound so content, if he is resorting to empty platitudes, rather than concrete data, to prop up investor confidence.
There is money to be made in the "me too" products, but that is not the same business model Steve Jobs used.
The only reason to make a statement like this, which effectively boils down to "Apple's value is going increase, but you have to take it on pure faith because I just can't give you any concrete reasons why", is if you're desperately trying to uphold investor confidence in light of Apple's image fading as a premium technology leader. No doubt this was attempt was fueled by all the announcements from the rest of the industry about the foldable devices, which look so much "cooler and leading edge" than Apple products.
Maybe Amazon had their fill of this New York charm they speak of. Why would any company want to establish an HQ somewhere where they'll be constantly attacked, be it by a vocal minority who would rather be uneducated and unemployed than have someone make money on their work. Too many negative sensational headlines and people who don't read past the headline. In the today's age of social outrage, the negative publicity is not worth it for a global company. They'd rather stay out of the headlines and continue to sell to New Yorkers as customers.