In the 1960's the prevailing opinion about Japanese quality is that it was inferior in every way except cost, and there was ample justification for that opinion. Then the same thing happened again a couple decades later, but this time it was Taiwan. In the early 1900's? Germany was the dog-shit bottom-feeder of manufacturing.
All three of the above are now considered to be among the highest-quality manufacturers in the world.
I take it you don't fly in or out of LAX very much? Traffic is a nightmare. It can take 30-45 minutes to simply loop through the terminals a single time when it's busy, which is damn near every night. I'm not saying that these rules don't defend taxi's turf, but there is more reason to it than just that.
...few people outside the country know what it's like to live with those access controls, or how to get around them...
Well, there are the millions that visit China each year, and anyone who's ever bothered setting up a VPN connection so they could FaceTime with family or whatever.
There could be a number of reasons why they don't want the info public
1) It doesn't work that well, or there is an obvious defense against it they don't want public.
2) They've been abusing their power some how by collecting info on people not really suspects, and don't want to be hit up by every divorce lawyer in the country. ( not sure if that's really illegal).
3) They're idiotic power tripping jerks that think its an ultra secret thing that will cause all law enforcement to lose its effectiveness if more people know about it.
4) It contains evidence of alien life forms visits to our planet, and their preference for blackberry cell phones.
5) They've been using it to track some for-real bad guys, and the release of the documents would compromise an ongoing investigation or investigations.
I suspect it's a combination of mostly (2), some (5), and a sprinkling of (3).
First, in order for airport wi-fi to not-suck, you'll need a massive subnet with a TTL of no more than 30 minutes. Yes, I've been in airports where a/24 subnet was apparently just dandy...
Second, everyone who's in an airport seems to want to stream Netflix or something like that; I do hope that Netflix throws a peering widget their way, because the thousands of iPads in that airport will strain the pipe pretty efficiently.
Third, you're on a single collision domain, half-duplex, along with everyone else. 5GHz may help matters, but 2.4 will still be needed for compatibility, and if you're stuck on it, you'll probably get useful speed out of a dial-up optimized RDP session an an SSH window, but the only way regular web browsing is ever worth it is if you have some absurdly early flight (5AM takeoff or similar), at which point 'using my computer' plays second fiddle to the better activity: sleep.
Sorry, I've just never seen it worth it. I always load up my hard drive before I go, and I've never regretted it.
The airport: the worst place to be in the cloud.
It's an oversimplification to say that it's a single collision domain. Any decent enterprise wireless network uses overlapping access points that will automatically select and change channels based on automated detection of congestion and interference. Yes, there is always some level of frequency overlap, but that is easily addressed.
As far as address spacing goes, there's a number of scenarios in which a/24 can be just fine. Perhaps they are backhauling everything to a concentrator that performs NAT on a per-AP or per-zone basis, coupled with L3 roaming. A single massive subnet with maximum 30 minute session time is probably the worst possible design.
Enterprise mesh wireless has come a long way in the last five or ten years. Shopping malls and airports have wifi networks with multiple hundreds of APs in very high density so that they can gather wifi device location analytics via triangulation in addition to providing guest wireless access. They use it for determining foot traffic patterns and also storefront dwell time and conversion rates. For example, an airport will be interested in knowing where wireless devices are detected at a standstill in high densities, because they may be able to move things around or otherwise modify the physical environment to make it easier for folks to get to where they want to go. Interesting and also somewhat scary stuff.
Why wouldn't an autonomous car be able to avoid potholes?
I really don't know, can they?
It seems reasonable to me that they easily could, although I don't know if they do already. A lot of the data input for automation comes from cameras, programming pothole detection would be trivial compared to what they've already accomplished.
Every car maker is going to start losing market share to Google unless they offer this. Google's head start combined with their better engineers means that Google might become the dominant software provider to cars. Unless car manufacturers come up with software that is equally safe, Google will soon start making more money per car sale than the manufacturers.
Google isn't interested in manufacturing cars. Google is interested in licensing their technology to other companies that already do. This is how it works today. Most of the Japanese companies use Denso. Ford used to use Microsoft but will be using Blackberry/QNX going forward. Google wants to compete with those guys, not with the auto manufacturers themselves.
One thing I like about driving is that I can choose my route. Go new places. Will the self-driving car give me any choice of route, or will it always take the same boring route to a given destination?
I've seen this question a lot on this story. I can't imagine it would be in Google's (or anyone else's) interest to not provide the driver with complete control over every aspect of the journey. Many of the assertions I've seen today are just silly. Of course the car will allow you to stop and pee, or change the route, or cancel it and go somewhere else, or avoid your ex-girlfriend's street, or whatever. They're still hauling bags of meat around and the entire point is to service their transportation needs.
That said, Google/Waze + autonomous car = commute nirvana.
There are far too many scenarios on public roads where a self drive car wouldn't know what to do and would require human intervention. At the very least it requires an unimpaired, conscious, qualified human being with their own set of controls who can take over if the need arises or if the car does something dumb.
If these become shuttles or taxis it would have to be in carefully controlled conditions where it is highly unlikely that some event would occur that leaves the vehicle stuck and unable to move. And even there, it's possible that there would have to be a a human sitting in a booth nearby who could override the system if it became stuck.
And yet Google has clocked over 700,000 autonomous miles on public roads already, in uncontrolled conditions. The pool of unforeseen scenarios is finite and shrinking. I do agree that manual controls should remain in place as the technology matures.
An example: The train you're on is running 30 minutes late, and you need a cab to get you to the day's last ferry, or you will have to wait until morning. That's when you'll really appreciate what a skilled cabdriver can do for you. Not to mention a human driver can avoid potholes, at least until the Google Hover Taxi comes along...;^)
Why wouldn't an autonomous car be able to avoid potholes?
The hook/trapeze method is the same as what they were attempting with the Goblin. The "hanger" in this case was a B36, but the launch/recovery method was very similar.
Wait, they were not sure mid air refueling could work, but they thought they could dock a fighter to a bomber in mid air? What sense does that make?
It makes a lot of sense. They had a problem they weren't sure how to solve and were trying different methods. At the time the problems associated with mid-air refueling were no better understood than those of mid-air docking. Docking was the ideal solution, because it would have given them the range they needed AND reduced pilot fatigue, which was also a big problem.
They were thinking that many bombers were getting shot down after their shorter-range fighter escorts had to peel off and head home. It wasn't clear at the time that mid-air refueling could work.
I was talking to an employee who was fired, but still around for a couple of days to clean up her stuff. She asked if I had backups, because she wanted to delete all of the projects she was working on. I told her that she was paid to do that work and I doubt if other people will go through her work that much anyway. Why go the unethical route when it just makes you look bad?
I bet this guy could have just left, and assuming he was useful, the company would soon be feeling the pain anyway.
The sad thing is that the people who think like this don't seem to be aware that this flaw in their character is probably why they got fired in the first place.
Why should they? It's not the USN's responsibility to find another country's lost plane. Instead of wasting money on that, the US government could be spending it to help THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
The plane was a US-manufactured Boeing. Finding it and understanding the reason it crashed is in the interest of the US.
They were not planning to make a profit at this point. It's part of the long term strategy. Fancy that, a CEO who can see past the next quarter's results!
This is far more common than the financial experts here on/. appear to believe. There are many examples of companies successfully executing long-term growth strategies.
A physical key still unlocks the doors when the car's battery has died. A physical key doesn't itself have a battery to die, leaving you stranded in a blizzard in the middle of nowhere after you stop to pee on the side of the road. And perhaps most importantly - A physical key doesn't cost some $300 to replace when you drop it in a puddle. If that particular scam doesn't solely account for the auto industry's desire to move to keyless fobs, I have a bridge for sale.
I have a 2014 Ford keyless system. Inside the fob is a metal key that will unlock the doors in the event of an emergency. If the fob battery is dead there is a space in the center console where you can place it and still start your car. I assume it uses NFC or something similar in that case. Replacement fobs are going for $90 on eBay, and Ford gives you instructions to program them yourself. None of your points are valid.
TFA says there were no Youtube videos to learn solving methods back in the day. That's true, but there were published solving procedures in book form. I had one when I was around 12 or 13 and after some practice could solve a cube in well under a minute, but it's been so long I can no longer remember the process I used. It worked 100% of the time, though. TFA makes it sound like it was a lot harder to solve in the 80's before the popularization of the Internet, but it wasn't. You just had to buy a book.
Slashdot Mirror
In the 1960's the prevailing opinion about Japanese quality is that it was inferior in every way except cost, and there was ample justification for that opinion. Then the same thing happened again a couple decades later, but this time it was Taiwan. In the early 1900's? Germany was the dog-shit bottom-feeder of manufacturing.
All three of the above are now considered to be among the highest-quality manufacturers in the world.
Things change.
I take it you don't fly in or out of LAX very much? Traffic is a nightmare. It can take 30-45 minutes to simply loop through the terminals a single time when it's busy, which is damn near every night. I'm not saying that these rules don't defend taxi's turf, but there is more reason to it than just that.
...few people outside the country know what it's like to live with those access controls, or how to get around them...
Well, there are the millions that visit China each year, and anyone who's ever bothered setting up a VPN connection so they could FaceTime with family or whatever.
Wouldn't the release of the software and/or documentation need to predate the patents for that to work? I'm not sure how this would work.
There could be a number of reasons why they don't want the info public
1) It doesn't work that well, or there is an obvious defense against it they don't want public.
2) They've been abusing their power some how by collecting info on people not really suspects, and don't want to be hit up by every divorce lawyer in the country. ( not sure if that's really illegal).
3) They're idiotic power tripping jerks that think its an ultra secret thing that will cause all law enforcement to lose its effectiveness if more people know about it.
4) It contains evidence of alien life forms visits to our planet, and their preference for blackberry cell phones.
5) They've been using it to track some for-real bad guys, and the release of the documents would compromise an ongoing investigation or investigations.
I suspect it's a combination of mostly (2), some (5), and a sprinkling of (3).
First, in order for airport wi-fi to not-suck, you'll need a massive subnet with a TTL of no more than 30 minutes. Yes, I've been in airports where a /24 subnet was apparently just dandy...
Second, everyone who's in an airport seems to want to stream Netflix or something like that; I do hope that Netflix throws a peering widget their way, because the thousands of iPads in that airport will strain the pipe pretty efficiently.
Third, you're on a single collision domain, half-duplex, along with everyone else. 5GHz may help matters, but 2.4 will still be needed for compatibility, and if you're stuck on it, you'll probably get useful speed out of a dial-up optimized RDP session an an SSH window, but the only way regular web browsing is ever worth it is if you have some absurdly early flight (5AM takeoff or similar), at which point 'using my computer' plays second fiddle to the better activity: sleep.
Sorry, I've just never seen it worth it. I always load up my hard drive before I go, and I've never regretted it.
The airport: the worst place to be in the cloud.
It's an oversimplification to say that it's a single collision domain. Any decent enterprise wireless network uses overlapping access points that will automatically select and change channels based on automated detection of congestion and interference. Yes, there is always some level of frequency overlap, but that is easily addressed.
As far as address spacing goes, there's a number of scenarios in which a /24 can be just fine. Perhaps they are backhauling everything to a concentrator that performs NAT on a per-AP or per-zone basis, coupled with L3 roaming. A single massive subnet with maximum 30 minute session time is probably the worst possible design.
Enterprise mesh wireless has come a long way in the last five or ten years. Shopping malls and airports have wifi networks with multiple hundreds of APs in very high density so that they can gather wifi device location analytics via triangulation in addition to providing guest wireless access. They use it for determining foot traffic patterns and also storefront dwell time and conversion rates. For example, an airport will be interested in knowing where wireless devices are detected at a standstill in high densities, because they may be able to move things around or otherwise modify the physical environment to make it easier for folks to get to where they want to go. Interesting and also somewhat scary stuff.
That's probably where they got this anyway.
Why wouldn't an autonomous car be able to avoid potholes?
I really don't know, can they?
It seems reasonable to me that they easily could, although I don't know if they do already. A lot of the data input for automation comes from cameras, programming pothole detection would be trivial compared to what they've already accomplished.
well do you want to pay $10 GB in data and $15-$20 roaming?
it better have XM as well.
I just plug in a memory stick to a USB port. I think this is becoming fairly standard these days?
Every car maker is going to start losing market share to Google unless they offer this. Google's head start combined with their better engineers means that Google might become the dominant software provider to cars. Unless car manufacturers come up with software that is equally safe, Google will soon start making more money per car sale than the manufacturers.
Google isn't interested in manufacturing cars. Google is interested in licensing their technology to other companies that already do. This is how it works today. Most of the Japanese companies use Denso. Ford used to use Microsoft but will be using Blackberry/QNX going forward. Google wants to compete with those guys, not with the auto manufacturers themselves.
One thing I like about driving is that I can choose my route. Go new places. Will the self-driving car give me any choice of route, or will it always take the same boring route to a given destination?
I've seen this question a lot on this story. I can't imagine it would be in Google's (or anyone else's) interest to not provide the driver with complete control over every aspect of the journey. Many of the assertions I've seen today are just silly. Of course the car will allow you to stop and pee, or change the route, or cancel it and go somewhere else, or avoid your ex-girlfriend's street, or whatever. They're still hauling bags of meat around and the entire point is to service their transportation needs.
That said, Google/Waze + autonomous car = commute nirvana.
At least put in a CD / CD changer.
People still use CDs?
There are far too many scenarios on public roads where a self drive car wouldn't know what to do and would require human intervention. At the very least it requires an unimpaired, conscious, qualified human being with their own set of controls who can take over if the need arises or if the car does something dumb.
If these become shuttles or taxis it would have to be in carefully controlled conditions where it is highly unlikely that some event would occur that leaves the vehicle stuck and unable to move. And even there, it's possible that there would have to be a a human sitting in a booth nearby who could override the system if it became stuck.
And yet Google has clocked over 700,000 autonomous miles on public roads already, in uncontrolled conditions. The pool of unforeseen scenarios is finite and shrinking. I do agree that manual controls should remain in place as the technology matures.
An example: The train you're on is running 30 minutes late, and you need a cab to get you to the day's last ferry, or you will have to wait until morning. That's when you'll really appreciate what a skilled cabdriver can do for you. Not to mention a human driver can avoid potholes, at least until the Google Hover Taxi comes along... ;^)
Why wouldn't an autonomous car be able to avoid potholes?
Fair enough, but the reason we know this won't work due to those factors is because... they tried it and it didn't work.
The hook/trapeze method is the same as what they were attempting with the Goblin. The "hanger" in this case was a B36, but the launch/recovery method was very similar.
Wait, they were not sure mid air refueling could work, but they thought they could dock a fighter to a bomber in mid air? What sense does that make?
It makes a lot of sense. They had a problem they weren't sure how to solve and were trying different methods. At the time the problems associated with mid-air refueling were no better understood than those of mid-air docking. Docking was the ideal solution, because it would have given them the range they needed AND reduced pilot fatigue, which was also a big problem.
One of my FAVE failures:
McDonnell XF-85 Goblin
What WERE they thinking?
They were thinking that many bombers were getting shot down after their shorter-range fighter escorts had to peel off and head home. It wasn't clear at the time that mid-air refueling could work.
The pedantic GNU/Linux war is long over. It's like going around telling everyone that the tomato is a fruit; technically true but of no practical use.
I was talking to an employee who was fired, but still around for a couple of days to clean up her stuff. She asked if I had backups, because she wanted to delete all of the projects she was working on. I told her that she was paid to do that work and I doubt if other people will go through her work that much anyway. Why go the unethical route when it just makes you look bad?
I bet this guy could have just left, and assuming he was useful, the company would soon be feeling the pain anyway.
The sad thing is that the people who think like this don't seem to be aware that this flaw in their character is probably why they got fired in the first place.
Why should they? It's not the USN's responsibility to find another country's lost plane. Instead of wasting money on that, the US government could be spending it to help THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
The plane was a US-manufactured Boeing. Finding it and understanding the reason it crashed is in the interest of the US.
They were not planning to make a profit at this point. It's part of the long term strategy. Fancy that, a CEO who can see past the next quarter's results!
This is far more common than the financial experts here on /. appear to believe. There are many examples of companies successfully executing long-term growth strategies.
A physical key still unlocks the doors when the car's battery has died. A physical key doesn't itself have a battery to die, leaving you stranded in a blizzard in the middle of nowhere after you stop to pee on the side of the road. And perhaps most importantly - A physical key doesn't cost some $300 to replace when you drop it in a puddle. If that particular scam doesn't solely account for the auto industry's desire to move to keyless fobs, I have a bridge for sale.
I have a 2014 Ford keyless system. Inside the fob is a metal key that will unlock the doors in the event of an emergency. If the fob battery is dead there is a space in the center console where you can place it and still start your car. I assume it uses NFC or something similar in that case. Replacement fobs are going for $90 on eBay, and Ford gives you instructions to program them yourself. None of your points are valid.
TFA says there were no Youtube videos to learn solving methods back in the day. That's true, but there were published solving procedures in book form. I had one when I was around 12 or 13 and after some practice could solve a cube in well under a minute, but it's been so long I can no longer remember the process I used. It worked 100% of the time, though. TFA makes it sound like it was a lot harder to solve in the 80's before the popularization of the Internet, but it wasn't. You just had to buy a book.
I'm not surprised by this ruling at all. The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses acting badly.
What ruling? They declined to hear the case because there isn't a constitutional challenge.