I've never used any c++ specific constructs in any of my arduino programs.
So you've chosen not to use C++ features, but your code is compiled as C++, and all of the framework code that calls your code is C++ -- and it definitely uses C++ features. C++ is the Arduino language, not C.
If you stick to a C-only subset of C++ you can write your library in C++, but at that point why bother with C++ anyway?
Or you could write your library in C++ but put it behind a C interface. Then you can use all of the expressive power of C++ internally, and provide an API that can be called from any language. And it will still be very close to as portable as if it were written in plain C, because we now have decent C++ compilers on very nearly every platform.
I wish that there were more phones running plain Android with fast updates.
This article is exactly what we need to make that happen, though ideally we need it to be on CNN, not just Ars. But Ars is a good step. When consumers demand good update policies, manufacturers will provide them. It's a competitive market.
Actually, I think we're further down that road than it may appear. Stagefright was a big kick in the butt for the Android ecosystem. Not because it actually affected any real users, but because it got a *lot* of press. I think many OEMs have realized they need to fix their update problems, because consumers are beginning to care. The problem is that the OEMs product plans for the last few years have not included plans for monthly updates. Planning for that sort of update cycle requires them to change a lot of things in the way they do business. One is closely related to what you mentioned about carrier-specific builds: The OEMs just have too danged many products. It's not uncommon that what appears to the end user as a single model (e.g. Samsung Note 4) is actually one or two *dozen* different devices... each with its own software build. Not because they actually need that many SKUs and not because all of them actually need different software, it's just been easier to do it that way. Now that the pressure to provide updates is being turned up, I think they're looking at how to streamline their product lines and processes to make it more feasible to deliver them. Oh, and they also have to build the cost of the update-related work into their business plans.
However, building phones is a complex process, and device design and planning cycles often run more than two years, so it takes time for changes in approach to reach the market. I think it'll start getting a lot better in the next 1-2 years.
That's why I'm just sticking with Nexus phones.
Me too. Of course, in my case it helps that I get them for free:-)
Of course you didn't talk at all about "handling the current situation" you talked about "self driving" which isn't actually related at all.
I actually don't agree with that, though that's Tesla's position. I don't think semi-autonomous driving is realistic. Once the car can drive itself sufficiently well that people feel safe looking away to text or whatever, they will. Any system that expects that a human will continue paying attention and be ready to take over at a moment's notice is asking for trouble.
I can't find one either - I moved out of the states ~20 years ago, and I have NEVER paid that much taxes since then, and much nicer (larger) houses.
NJ property taxes are insane, definitely. They've been insane for a long time, though, so I don't think they're evidence of federal taxes being shifted to the state level.
Nice job of focusing on word choice and ignoring the point. The GP claimed that this would be studied and a fix for the current system would be pushed out, making it safer. My point is that I don't think the car has the sensors needed to handle this scenario, so it's not possible to push a fix to the current system.
Actually, your GPS receiver can pinpoint your location more rapidly if it has a good approximate location to start with, which it can get from Wifi location. If your GPS receiver had to start from scratch (no assumption about initial location), it could take multiple minutes to locate you because it has to find and identify multiple satellites, and listen for a full 30-second cycle from each. With a good location estimate plus an already-synchronized clock, the GPS receiver can refine your location in a few seconds.
So GPS does work better with Wifi enabled. And, as you said, location services can use Wifi even when GPS isn't available. In cities Wifi can be much better than GPS because unobstructed views of the sky are hard to come by, and the Wifi AP density is high.
Tesla will make some changes to ensure that this type of accident is avoided in the future, and push at the next update.
I'm not sure that's possible. I think the biggest part of the problem in this case is that the sensor hardware on the Tesla Model S is inadequate for self-driving. The radar doesn't have vertical resolution so it can't determine whether there's enough clear space under an obstacle, and the camera can't resolve differences between a light gray truck and a light gray sky. To fix this you need either dramatically better vision processing software (which may well require better on-board computing hardware), or better sensors -- e.g. LIDAR.
Do you have a link to NJ property tax rates by year? I'd like to look, but can't find one. I can find a bunch of articles complaining about large recent increases, but nothing that shows a long-term trend that is enough to offset decreased federal taxes.
Google should have created an OS architecture that allowed for it to push its own security updates while leaving the aesthetic aspects and third party apps of the phone vendors and carriers alone (unless they were fundamental to the security problem).
If there were a clear dividing line between "aesthetic aspects" and "things fundamental to the security problem", that might be feasible. The Android One project has actually tried to draw such a line, but none of the big OEMs are happy with where Google drew it. They want lots of control.
It's not that Google doesn't know how to do that. It's that Google can't do that while also having a free and open source OS. Every piece that's moved out of the OS and into Play services is another piece that is no longer open. Moreover, if Google does too much of that sort of thing and removes the ability of OEMs to customize and differentiate their devices, they'll ignore Google completely, filling in the missing bits with their own code. Removing components from the OS is a last resort, not a first choice.
What makes things worse are carrier specific builds. Apple managed to do tell them to F off, Google should too.
AFAIK, Google doesn't do carrier-specific builds for Nexus devices (though I know there is some carrier-specific testing). Google can't control what other companies do. Their devices have to pass the tests to prove compatibility or they can't use the Google apps (including Play, which is the biggest carrot), but that's the full extent of the control Google has.
The general thrust is: You can't help people commit crimes.
True, but if you do help someone commit a crime, then you should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime, not money laundering. This guy was prosecuted for money laundering and the judge said "this ain't money laundering". If they want to prosecute him for conspiracy, they may have more luck. My guess is they went with money laundering because they thought it was easier to prove or because it had heftier penalties.
The reason banks care is that they want to make sure you didn't borrow your downpayment from another bank. So the red flag for them is not the amount or the claimed source, but how recently you got the money. If the cash has been sitting in your bank account for several months -- and doesn't show up as a loan on your credit report -- they're happy to assume it's yours.
So, if the AC's parents gave him the 100K and it sat in his account for a few months, the bank probably wouldn't ask many questions about it. Twice I've used the proceeds of stock sales as part of a downpayment. I sold the stock just a few weeks before the purchase so the lenders *did* question the source of the money and I had to provide documentation to show that it was from a stock sale.
In many parts of the world, and especially in India, gold is indeed widely used as an "ultimate" store of value.
Go to Dubai and you'll see the immegrant workers buying "genuine guaranteed" ingots to take back home
Yep, it has worth because lots of people believe it does. Same as fiat currencies... gold just has a longer history of being considered valuable, so people think less about the fact that its actual value, in terms of stuff you can make/do with it, isn't actually that large.
None of what you just said contradicts the post you replied to. Perhaps you should read it. I'm not even saying I agree with it, just that it's clear you responded without reading.
So, while customers don't necessarily "have a constitutional right to know if the government has searched or seized their property", the government certainly has no constitutional right to prohibit companies from telling customers anything they want.
If you grant that the government has a legitimate national security interest in keeping the inquiries quiet, the courts will rule that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes the gag orders.
The man was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he bought some buildings and his overall investments were no better than if he had randomly bought and sold them. He didn't beat the market in some way that isn't obvious due to "timing".
Worse, actually. If he'd put the money into an S&P 500 index fund he'd be much wealthier today.
Nonsense. Economics is the study of how people exchange goods and services.
Yes, but apparently a 'successful' economy is one which is always growing...
Sure it is. But the AC assumes that growth inevitably means increasing consumption of natural resources. It can mean that, but that actually only works in a context where the natural resources in question are abundant. Once they become scarce (perhaps artificially), then growth comes from finding ways to use resources more efficiently.
A successful economy is one which is improving the standard of living of the people in it. There is no reason why that process cannot be endless... though the definition of what constitutes improvement absolutely will change over time.
So unlike what Marxist said central planning actually works best to quickly grow backwards, agrarian even, economies rather than improving advanced economies.
That actually makes perfect sense if you study Marx's core economic theory, the labor theory of value. In that view, all production is about organization of labor, with some attention to the sources of raw materials. There is no discussion at all of the role of innovation, or information, and the theory is focused on a world in stasis, in which the materials, processes and outputs are all well-known, and unchanging.
But progress comes from the creation of new ideas, ways to make new goods, or make old goods with less labor or less, or different, raw materials. An economy organized on communist principles has few mechanisms for encouraging innovation. The Soviet Union made a big deal of identifying and nurturing smart people and giving them the resources to invent new science and technology, but that is perhaps the least important part of the innovation that moves an economy forward. Not that new science and technology isn't hugely important, but the aggregate impact of millions upon millions of small improvements in processes and business models is larger, especially on the general standard of living. So, the Soviet Union was able to stay in shouting distance, more or less, of the United States in terms of technological progress... but was unable to keep the grocery store shelves stocked. That is in the inevitable result of a system that doesn't incentivize and reward small-scale innovation.
Posting something about your employer without being anonymous is just plain stupid!
Depends on your employer. I post stuff about my employer all the time, under a slashdot username that is the same as my corporate LDAP username, and have gotten kudos for it. I've also gotten a couple of calls from legal, asking me to be careful about commenting on legal issues, but the attorneys apologized effusively for doing so, and pointed out that they recognized I was being careful but just want to reiterate that it was important.
But my employer is particularly open-minded, and particularly confident in its employees' judgement. You need to understand your context, and YMMV.
Oh, and business SLAs typically also include guaranteed minimum bandwidth. Consumer service is "up to X/Y", and typically it's not *too* far below (and sometimes it's even above), but there are no guarantees.
That does suck, though...introductory rates and such are never guaranteed. Still, it beats my Comcast by a pretty wide margin - $70 gets me 30/10, and that's consumer-capped. I'd jump at the chance for 100/100 (or even 50) at $75.
And you're only getting a consumer service level agreement which is, basically, that if it doesn't work they'll fix it when they get around to it. I'm sure the Google Fiber business class service includes a more typical business SLA, with defined maximum response times and compensation for excessive outages. That sort of SLA typically triples the price vs a consumer service with the same bandwidth.
So, with the price change, that means we'll have to pay, basically, double to maintain our 1 Gbps, otherwise we lose 75% of our speed to pay the same price.
Or, you could drop down to the consumer tier and pay less per month than you currently do... but give up the business-class service level agreement that you have.
If you're getting 1Gbps with a business SLA for $125 per month right now, that's an *amazing* deal. Comcast would soak you for twice that for 100 Mbps. I currently pay $120 per month for 15/3 (Mbps) with a business SLA, though that's because I'm out in the sticks where there are very few options available.
So a pedestrian in dark clothes, at night, not hearing an electric car, and jaywalking by stepping out from between vehicles means the driver drives like "a moronic asshat."
you do know that electric cars are almost silent, especially at low speeds, right?
I don't know about the Model S, but the Nissan LEAF isn't. It has a speaker in the driver's wheel well that makes noise when the car is moving at less than 20 mph. Over 20 mph tire noise is loud enough to be quite audible.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never used any c++ specific constructs in any of my arduino programs.
So you've chosen not to use C++ features, but your code is compiled as C++, and all of the framework code that calls your code is C++ -- and it definitely uses C++ features. C++ is the Arduino language, not C.
If you stick to a C-only subset of C++ you can write your library in C++, but at that point why bother with C++ anyway?
Or you could write your library in C++ but put it behind a C interface. Then you can use all of the expressive power of C++ internally, and provide an API that can be called from any language. And it will still be very close to as portable as if it were written in plain C, because we now have decent C++ compilers on very nearly every platform.
I wish that there were more phones running plain Android with fast updates.
This article is exactly what we need to make that happen, though ideally we need it to be on CNN, not just Ars. But Ars is a good step. When consumers demand good update policies, manufacturers will provide them. It's a competitive market.
Actually, I think we're further down that road than it may appear. Stagefright was a big kick in the butt for the Android ecosystem. Not because it actually affected any real users, but because it got a *lot* of press. I think many OEMs have realized they need to fix their update problems, because consumers are beginning to care. The problem is that the OEMs product plans for the last few years have not included plans for monthly updates. Planning for that sort of update cycle requires them to change a lot of things in the way they do business. One is closely related to what you mentioned about carrier-specific builds: The OEMs just have too danged many products. It's not uncommon that what appears to the end user as a single model (e.g. Samsung Note 4) is actually one or two *dozen* different devices... each with its own software build. Not because they actually need that many SKUs and not because all of them actually need different software, it's just been easier to do it that way. Now that the pressure to provide updates is being turned up, I think they're looking at how to streamline their product lines and processes to make it more feasible to deliver them. Oh, and they also have to build the cost of the update-related work into their business plans.
However, building phones is a complex process, and device design and planning cycles often run more than two years, so it takes time for changes in approach to reach the market. I think it'll start getting a lot better in the next 1-2 years.
That's why I'm just sticking with Nexus phones.
Me too. Of course, in my case it helps that I get them for free :-)
Of course you didn't talk at all about "handling the current situation" you talked about "self driving" which isn't actually related at all.
I actually don't agree with that, though that's Tesla's position. I don't think semi-autonomous driving is realistic. Once the car can drive itself sufficiently well that people feel safe looking away to text or whatever, they will. Any system that expects that a human will continue paying attention and be ready to take over at a moment's notice is asking for trouble.
I can't find one either - I moved out of the states ~20 years ago, and I have NEVER paid that much taxes since then, and much nicer (larger) houses.
NJ property taxes are insane, definitely. They've been insane for a long time, though, so I don't think they're evidence of federal taxes being shifted to the state level.
Nice job of focusing on word choice and ignoring the point. The GP claimed that this would be studied and a fix for the current system would be pushed out, making it safer. My point is that I don't think the car has the sensors needed to handle this scenario, so it's not possible to push a fix to the current system.
GPS does not work better with WiFi enabled
Actually, your GPS receiver can pinpoint your location more rapidly if it has a good approximate location to start with, which it can get from Wifi location. If your GPS receiver had to start from scratch (no assumption about initial location), it could take multiple minutes to locate you because it has to find and identify multiple satellites, and listen for a full 30-second cycle from each. With a good location estimate plus an already-synchronized clock, the GPS receiver can refine your location in a few seconds.
So GPS does work better with Wifi enabled. And, as you said, location services can use Wifi even when GPS isn't available. In cities Wifi can be much better than GPS because unobstructed views of the sky are hard to come by, and the Wifi AP density is high.
Tesla will make some changes to ensure that this type of accident is avoided in the future, and push at the next update.
I'm not sure that's possible. I think the biggest part of the problem in this case is that the sensor hardware on the Tesla Model S is inadequate for self-driving. The radar doesn't have vertical resolution so it can't determine whether there's enough clear space under an obstacle, and the camera can't resolve differences between a light gray truck and a light gray sky. To fix this you need either dramatically better vision processing software (which may well require better on-board computing hardware), or better sensors -- e.g. LIDAR.
Do you have a link to NJ property tax rates by year? I'd like to look, but can't find one. I can find a bunch of articles complaining about large recent increases, but nothing that shows a long-term trend that is enough to offset decreased federal taxes.
Google should have created an OS architecture that allowed for it to push its own security updates while leaving the aesthetic aspects and third party apps of the phone vendors and carriers alone (unless they were fundamental to the security problem).
If there were a clear dividing line between "aesthetic aspects" and "things fundamental to the security problem", that might be feasible. The Android One project has actually tried to draw such a line, but none of the big OEMs are happy with where Google drew it. They want lots of control.
I don't see why Google can't figure it out
(Android security team member here)
It's not that Google doesn't know how to do that. It's that Google can't do that while also having a free and open source OS. Every piece that's moved out of the OS and into Play services is another piece that is no longer open. Moreover, if Google does too much of that sort of thing and removes the ability of OEMs to customize and differentiate their devices, they'll ignore Google completely, filling in the missing bits with their own code. Removing components from the OS is a last resort, not a first choice.
What makes things worse are carrier specific builds. Apple managed to do tell them to F off, Google should too.
AFAIK, Google doesn't do carrier-specific builds for Nexus devices (though I know there is some carrier-specific testing). Google can't control what other companies do. Their devices have to pass the tests to prove compatibility or they can't use the Google apps (including Play, which is the biggest carrot), but that's the full extent of the control Google has.
The general thrust is: You can't help people commit crimes.
True, but if you do help someone commit a crime, then you should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime, not money laundering. This guy was prosecuted for money laundering and the judge said "this ain't money laundering". If they want to prosecute him for conspiracy, they may have more luck. My guess is they went with money laundering because they thought it was easier to prove or because it had heftier penalties.
The reason banks care is that they want to make sure you didn't borrow your downpayment from another bank. So the red flag for them is not the amount or the claimed source, but how recently you got the money. If the cash has been sitting in your bank account for several months -- and doesn't show up as a loan on your credit report -- they're happy to assume it's yours.
So, if the AC's parents gave him the 100K and it sat in his account for a few months, the bank probably wouldn't ask many questions about it. Twice I've used the proceeds of stock sales as part of a downpayment. I sold the stock just a few weeks before the purchase so the lenders *did* question the source of the money and I had to provide documentation to show that it was from a stock sale.
In many parts of the world, and especially in India, gold is indeed widely used as an "ultimate" store of value. Go to Dubai and you'll see the immegrant workers buying "genuine guaranteed" ingots to take back home
Yep, it has worth because lots of people believe it does. Same as fiat currencies... gold just has a longer history of being considered valuable, so people think less about the fact that its actual value, in terms of stuff you can make/do with it, isn't actually that large.
None of what you just said contradicts the post you replied to. Perhaps you should read it. I'm not even saying I agree with it, just that it's clear you responded without reading.
So, while customers don't necessarily "have a constitutional right to know if the government has searched or seized their property", the government certainly has no constitutional right to prohibit companies from telling customers anything they want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
If you grant that the government has a legitimate national security interest in keeping the inquiries quiet, the courts will rule that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes the gag orders.
Sorry to sound confrontational, but that's bullshit. It just is. And ironically Donald Trump is the one that proves it.
No it doesn't. It just means the ultra-rich do not march in lock-step.
Did you read beyond the sentence you quoted?
The man was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he bought some buildings and his overall investments were no better than if he had randomly bought and sold them. He didn't beat the market in some way that isn't obvious due to "timing".
Worse, actually. If he'd put the money into an S&P 500 index fund he'd be much wealthier today.
Yes, but apparently a 'successful' economy is one which is always growing...
Sure it is. But the AC assumes that growth inevitably means increasing consumption of natural resources. It can mean that, but that actually only works in a context where the natural resources in question are abundant. Once they become scarce (perhaps artificially), then growth comes from finding ways to use resources more efficiently.
A successful economy is one which is improving the standard of living of the people in it. There is no reason why that process cannot be endless... though the definition of what constitutes improvement absolutely will change over time.
So unlike what Marxist said central planning actually works best to quickly grow backwards, agrarian even, economies rather than improving advanced economies.
That actually makes perfect sense if you study Marx's core economic theory, the labor theory of value. In that view, all production is about organization of labor, with some attention to the sources of raw materials. There is no discussion at all of the role of innovation, or information, and the theory is focused on a world in stasis, in which the materials, processes and outputs are all well-known, and unchanging.
But progress comes from the creation of new ideas, ways to make new goods, or make old goods with less labor or less, or different, raw materials. An economy organized on communist principles has few mechanisms for encouraging innovation. The Soviet Union made a big deal of identifying and nurturing smart people and giving them the resources to invent new science and technology, but that is perhaps the least important part of the innovation that moves an economy forward. Not that new science and technology isn't hugely important, but the aggregate impact of millions upon millions of small improvements in processes and business models is larger, especially on the general standard of living. So, the Soviet Union was able to stay in shouting distance, more or less, of the United States in terms of technological progress... but was unable to keep the grocery store shelves stocked. That is in the inevitable result of a system that doesn't incentivize and reward small-scale innovation.
Posting something about your employer without being anonymous is just plain stupid!
Depends on your employer. I post stuff about my employer all the time, under a slashdot username that is the same as my corporate LDAP username, and have gotten kudos for it. I've also gotten a couple of calls from legal, asking me to be careful about commenting on legal issues, but the attorneys apologized effusively for doing so, and pointed out that they recognized I was being careful but just want to reiterate that it was important.
But my employer is particularly open-minded, and particularly confident in its employees' judgement. You need to understand your context, and YMMV.
Oh, and business SLAs typically also include guaranteed minimum bandwidth. Consumer service is "up to X/Y", and typically it's not *too* far below (and sometimes it's even above), but there are no guarantees.
That does suck, though...introductory rates and such are never guaranteed. Still, it beats my Comcast by a pretty wide margin - $70 gets me 30/10, and that's consumer-capped. I'd jump at the chance for 100/100 (or even 50) at $75.
And you're only getting a consumer service level agreement which is, basically, that if it doesn't work they'll fix it when they get around to it. I'm sure the Google Fiber business class service includes a more typical business SLA, with defined maximum response times and compensation for excessive outages. That sort of SLA typically triples the price vs a consumer service with the same bandwidth.
So, with the price change, that means we'll have to pay, basically, double to maintain our 1 Gbps, otherwise we lose 75% of our speed to pay the same price.
Or, you could drop down to the consumer tier and pay less per month than you currently do... but give up the business-class service level agreement that you have.
If you're getting 1Gbps with a business SLA for $125 per month right now, that's an *amazing* deal. Comcast would soak you for twice that for 100 Mbps. I currently pay $120 per month for 15/3 (Mbps) with a business SLA, though that's because I'm out in the sticks where there are very few options available.
So a pedestrian in dark clothes, at night, not hearing an electric car, and jaywalking by stepping out from between vehicles means the driver drives like "a moronic asshat."
you do know that electric cars are almost silent, especially at low speeds, right?
I don't know about the Model S, but the Nissan LEAF isn't. It has a speaker in the driver's wheel well that makes noise when the car is moving at less than 20 mph. Over 20 mph tire noise is loud enough to be quite audible.