I think most manufacturers massively underestimated the difficulty of building a good EV. There are plenty of half-baked crappy ones, like the eGolf/eUp and the Mercedes B Class. But to do a really good one is hard. Nissan spent years developing the Leaf and it really shows, and Tesla did likewise.
You seem to be labouring under the assumption that the goal is to develop solar powered consumer vehicles. It's not, it's to develop ultra efficient solar generation and propulsion systems.
Kinda like how Formula 1 cars are somewhat impractical every-day-commute vehicles (single seater, little storage, crappy gas mileage, extremely fragile) but some of the technology filters down to more practical cars.
The main issue with a permanent base on the moon as opposed to Mars is the lack of resources up there. It's feasible to be self sustaining on Mars, although regular cargo shipments would make life a lot easier. On the moon any base would be reliant on regular supply missions from Earth just to survive.
Your method is probably safer but also much more expensive, and therefore highly unlikely to ever start and highly likely to be cancelled half way through. Practically aiming for Mars directly is a better option.
Those costs are microscopic compared to the loss of sales from producing a CPU that doesn't run the operating systems and applications people actually want. Maybe once they get this thing running Android it might start to make sense, but I doubt it is competitive in terms of performance per watt.
There are other effective mitigation strategies for potentially compromised hardware. For example, you could mix vendors with carefully controlled cross-domain access so that an exploit in one does not compromise others.
I'd love to see an open source security processor for this reason. It would be extremely valuable to have a crypto engine and secure key storage that you could trust. Unfortunately such things are also very difficult to design and fabricate.
China has its own line of MIPS CPUs that are pretty competitive.
They are actually one of the few fully open platforms in existence, where everything is fully documented. Well, the masks used to make the silicon are not, but you can at least verify the operation of the CPU yourself to a larger extent, and you don't need binary blob microcode updates.
equating disagreement with violence (words hurt campaign)
There doesn't seem to be an official campaign with that name, but generally speaking such things don't equate disagreement with violence. They merely point out that saying certain things does cause emotional pain to others.
Depending on the statement and the situation, it may be completely fine to cause emotional pain to others. Desirable, even. But that's not what these campaigns are usually about, they are mostly aimed at stopping children getting bullied for things they can't do much about, e.g. their disability.
Of course, they usually come down to an appeal to your sense of decency and your humanity to be nice to people, which again is why they are often aimed at children since those things are less developed during childhood.
They did the same thing with the hoverboards, recalled them all and destroyed all stock, even though some were fine.
In the UK the law is that the seller is responsible. In cases where Amazon is just "fulfilling" the order for someone else, they are still responsible because they handle the payment, they handle returns and they handle warranty issues. Any reasonable judge is going to consider them to be the seller, and they rarely bother to turn up to Small Claims Court for anything less than £1000.
They usually try to intimidate you by entering a fancy defence letter and claim for massive costs (which the Small Claims Court will not award them even if you lose, unless you case was actually malicious). But it's rarely more than a form letter and they even more rarely actually turn up to the hearing.
Google's self-driving car predicts the behaviour of other drivers. It also takes steps to avoid sitting in other driver's blind spots and the like. It does of course have lidar.
The crash that Google's car had a couple of years back was due to it predicting that a bus wouldn't try to squeeze through a small gap, but the bus driver did and they two collided at about 2 MPH. To be fair, a human would have had difficulty with that.
What worries me is that all this behaviour is designed in, which means once people figure it out they will be able to manipulate it.
In that case Amazon is responsible. Amazon must police the products sold via its web site. In the past they have banned "hoverboards" due to exploding batteries and solar eclipse glasses due to inadequate protection.
Musk's last update on when the self diving capability of Tesla cars week be delivered was the end of the year. Recently he said SpaceX would land people on Mars in 5 years.
Do you have any examples of idiotic left wing conspiracy theories that get less harsh treatment from Google, or are you just posting a right wing conspiracy theory?
It also forces the security services to actively target you and expend some extra effort to get your data.
In some countries, e.g. the UK, ISPs are required to log and hand over such data pretty much on demand to the police, and of course you have outfits like GCHQ and the NSA doing mass surveillance.
A VPN increases to cost to spy on you from nearly zero to something that will discourage casual snooping and a lot of abuse. It's not perfect but it's a useful line of defence.
I wasn't there. The only way I have to determine what happened is from reports by other people who were there.
I have to evaluate each source. Some have a history of being reliable and publishing corrections when they get it wrong. Those sources don't support your narrative.
In fact, the only sources that do take the position you do are notoriously unreliable. Brietbart, for example, publishes articles that get debunked in their own comments and almost never post corrections.
If you want people to accept your version of events you will need to provide some compelling evidence that established, proven reliable sources are wrong. Sorry, that's reality.
The issue is that computer vision doesn't work the same way as human vision. Human's are good at recognizing when things don't make sense, or spotting objects that are partially obscured and recognizing what they are. Humans know that when they can't see most of that thing because of the blinding sunlight reflecting off it, it's a car. The human eye has really good dynamic range too, and a built in self-cleaning system.
If you go to Tesla's web site right now they are offering it as full autonomous driving, take your kids to school for you kind of thing. That's a very high bar, and it's likely that even once the technology exists it will be a while before regulators figure it out and insurance companies can cope with it. And they are already selling it as a â4000 extra, to be enabled by software update.
And today their latest Autopilot isn't even as good as the old Autopilot V1 system. It really does seem quite premature, but they kind of forced themselves to promise it to avoid people waiting for the V3 hardware.
Tesla must be quite confident they can make it work, as they are already selling cars with full self driving as an option. The web site says it will come as a software update one day, exactly when depending on regulatory acceptance.
Slashdot Mirror
I think most manufacturers massively underestimated the difficulty of building a good EV. There are plenty of half-baked crappy ones, like the eGolf/eUp and the Mercedes B Class. But to do a really good one is hard. Nissan spent years developing the Leaf and it really shows, and Tesla did likewise.
You seem to be labouring under the assumption that the goal is to develop solar powered consumer vehicles. It's not, it's to develop ultra efficient solar generation and propulsion systems.
Kinda like how Formula 1 cars are somewhat impractical every-day-commute vehicles (single seater, little storage, crappy gas mileage, extremely fragile) but some of the technology filters down to more practical cars.
The main issue with a permanent base on the moon as opposed to Mars is the lack of resources up there. It's feasible to be self sustaining on Mars, although regular cargo shipments would make life a lot easier. On the moon any base would be reliant on regular supply missions from Earth just to survive.
Your method is probably safer but also much more expensive, and therefore highly unlikely to ever start and highly likely to be cancelled half way through. Practically aiming for Mars directly is a better option.
Than Raven, this is the best post I've read in a very long time. Wish I had mod-points.
Those costs are microscopic compared to the loss of sales from producing a CPU that doesn't run the operating systems and applications people actually want. Maybe once they get this thing running Android it might start to make sense, but I doubt it is competitive in terms of performance per watt.
There are other effective mitigation strategies for potentially compromised hardware. For example, you could mix vendors with carefully controlled cross-domain access so that an exploit in one does not compromise others.
I'd love to see an open source security processor for this reason. It would be extremely valuable to have a crypto engine and secure key storage that you could trust. Unfortunately such things are also very difficult to design and fabricate.
China has its own line of MIPS CPUs that are pretty competitive.
They are actually one of the few fully open platforms in existence, where everything is fully documented. Well, the masks used to make the silicon are not, but you can at least verify the operation of the CPU yourself to a larger extent, and you don't need binary blob microcode updates.
equating disagreement with violence (words hurt campaign)
There doesn't seem to be an official campaign with that name, but generally speaking such things don't equate disagreement with violence. They merely point out that saying certain things does cause emotional pain to others.
Depending on the statement and the situation, it may be completely fine to cause emotional pain to others. Desirable, even. But that's not what these campaigns are usually about, they are mostly aimed at stopping children getting bullied for things they can't do much about, e.g. their disability.
Of course, they usually come down to an appeal to your sense of decency and your humanity to be nice to people, which again is why they are often aimed at children since those things are less developed during childhood.
What has changed recently is that in a post-truth world there are no lies, only alternative facts. Also, all bad behaviour is just parody and satire.
Thus there can be no unacceptable speech, only people who are trying to suppress the truth or don't get the joke.
They did the same thing with the hoverboards, recalled them all and destroyed all stock, even though some were fine.
In the UK the law is that the seller is responsible. In cases where Amazon is just "fulfilling" the order for someone else, they are still responsible because they handle the payment, they handle returns and they handle warranty issues. Any reasonable judge is going to consider them to be the seller, and they rarely bother to turn up to Small Claims Court for anything less than £1000.
They usually try to intimidate you by entering a fancy defence letter and claim for massive costs (which the Small Claims Court will not award them even if you lose, unless you case was actually malicious). But it's rarely more than a form letter and they even more rarely actually turn up to the hearing.
Google's self-driving car predicts the behaviour of other drivers. It also takes steps to avoid sitting in other driver's blind spots and the like. It does of course have lidar.
The crash that Google's car had a couple of years back was due to it predicting that a bus wouldn't try to squeeze through a small gap, but the bus driver did and they two collided at about 2 MPH. To be fair, a human would have had difficulty with that.
What worries me is that all this behaviour is designed in, which means once people figure it out they will be able to manipulate it.
In that case Amazon is responsible. Amazon must police the products sold via its web site. In the past they have banned "hoverboards" due to exploding batteries and solar eclipse glasses due to inadequate protection.
Damn straight, and if you disagree I'll mod you -1 troll because it hurt my poor snowflake feelings.
I honestly would never have predicted that after 20 years right wing snowflakes would be the downfall of Slashdot.
Musk's last update on when the self diving capability of Tesla cars week be delivered was the end of the year. Recently he said SpaceX would land people on Mars in 5 years.
He's optimistic, you have to give him that.
So basically a mixture of stuff you wish wasn't true and total bullshit.
Do you have any examples of idiotic left wing conspiracy theories that get less harsh treatment from Google, or are you just posting a right wing conspiracy theory?
It also forces the security services to actively target you and expend some extra effort to get your data.
In some countries, e.g. the UK, ISPs are required to log and hand over such data pretty much on demand to the police, and of course you have outfits like GCHQ and the NSA doing mass surveillance.
A VPN increases to cost to spy on you from nearly zero to something that will discourage casual snooping and a lot of abuse. It's not perfect but it's a useful line of defence.
That's not what "knew" means. You strongly suspected, to the point where you were convinced it was certainly happening, but you did not have proof.
You might have suspected before Snowden, but he provided the proof that was necessary to take it from conspiracy theory to urgent threat.
I wasn't there. The only way I have to determine what happened is from reports by other people who were there.
I have to evaluate each source. Some have a history of being reliable and publishing corrections when they get it wrong. Those sources don't support your narrative.
In fact, the only sources that do take the position you do are notoriously unreliable. Brietbart, for example, publishes articles that get debunked in their own comments and almost never post corrections.
If you want people to accept your version of events you will need to provide some compelling evidence that established, proven reliable sources are wrong. Sorry, that's reality.
LOL, saying something is fake news means you think it's true. That's obviously what it is, yeah.
I checked and musk's latest prediction is "by the end of the year"...
The issue is that computer vision doesn't work the same way as human vision. Human's are good at recognizing when things don't make sense, or spotting objects that are partially obscured and recognizing what they are. Humans know that when they can't see most of that thing because of the blinding sunlight reflecting off it, it's a car. The human eye has really good dynamic range too, and a built in self-cleaning system.
If you go to Tesla's web site right now they are offering it as full autonomous driving, take your kids to school for you kind of thing. That's a very high bar, and it's likely that even once the technology exists it will be a while before regulators figure it out and insurance companies can cope with it. And they are already selling it as a â4000 extra, to be enabled by software update.
And today their latest Autopilot isn't even as good as the old Autopilot V1 system. It really does seem quite premature, but they kind of forced themselves to promise it to avoid people waiting for the V3 hardware.
Tesla must be quite confident they can make it work, as they are already selling cars with full self driving as an option. The web site says it will come as a software update one day, exactly when depending on regulatory acceptance.