I'm in to machine learning, and this thing is right up my alley. It would be great to take my workstation with me to conferences rather than trying to VPN and remote into a rig, considering how bad the latency can get. I doubt I can personally field the cost though, so I'll not be having one any time soon. My current personal portable rig is (sadly) almost exactly 1/10 the specs of this in terms of RAM, GPU, and hard disk capacity. I would imagine that travel bloggers would love encoding video on a rig like this, and architects would love doing on-site design work with advanced CAD models with a rig like this too. Basically, anybody who has a hard-core workstation type workload who also needs to work while traveling is the target market for a system like this.
I should clarify: The guy was not a criminal... he was totally innocent of any wrongdoing. When I read your comment, you said *every criminal* and I internally read it as *every citizen*... I just don't want to imply the guy was guilty of anything.
True... I can't find it now, but there is a video of a cop shooting a black guy at a gas station. The cop walks up and asks for his ID, and the guy is so eager/worried that he quickly turns and dives back into his truck to get the ID, be he does it so quickly that the cop takes it as a sign that the guy is going for a weapon. Both sides are primed for a negative experience.
This is an interesting problem... if you look at nearly ALL police shootings, they typically seem unjustified from the general public's perspective, but the cops always say "the officer was in fear for his life"... and therefore it is somehow justified. The problem is the way the laws are written and the way police are trained. If you ever get to see police training materials, police conventions, or even the daily emails from the department, they are all oriented around the basic concept of "every interaction could kill you so be hyper vigilant so you can come home to your kids tonight." This creates a scenario where police see what they've been trained to see: a threat on their life. This is how a naked guy running away down a rural highway can get shot for "being a threat" despite the 911 caller telling the dispatcher that the person is suffering from a mental condition.
One thing I know from personal experience is the way the media twists facts to make things look salacious. My brother was nearly killed in an avalanche, and the media reported that he was skiing out of bounds, when in fact he was never on resort property, he was back-country skiing with friends in forest service property. They also made it seem like the group had taken HUGE risks, when in fact they had been prepared, planned their route ahead of time, brought appropriate equipment, recognized the emerging risks, mitigated them with strategy, then executed a perfect self-rescue after the avalanche. But telling a great story about self-reliance and preparedness isn't on the media's agenda so they spin it the way they want... I mention all of this because I expect no less from the media with a police shooting. I suspect there are situational things that made the cop think the way he did. How well lit was the front porch? How clear was his view? What unrelated events prior in the day may have primed him to see what he saw as a threat? The media doesn't want to give you a clear picture of how the situation unfolded, they want to induce you to quickly pass judgement and move on to the next story.
It was certainly a homicide, but I'm not sure the intent rises to murder. I think it's a systemic problem throughout our entire police system. The police know how the law is written, so they train specifically to that loophole. If we tighten the loophole, fewer people can fit through. I'd love to see the laws change in that regard.
I came here to say this... I can't imagine a world where any US company could be broken up by an external union / country. I suppose they mean by proxy by denying them assets, facilities, and advertising revenue (they could certainly make it illegal for a German company to pay for advertising on Facebook)... but directly? Surely they don't have that kind of reach and Zuck knows it. Eventually the lack of advertising dollars would induce Facebook to stop wanting to serve those users due to the burden it puts on the system, but I wonder if there is enough US advertising dollars aimed at foreign countries to still make it worth it. It's not like the users are going to willingly leave because they aren't being advertised to.
But free returns are specifically offered on things that have a lower likelyhood of suitability based on product type. I've never seen it available for electronics, appliances, tools, etc. But I see it all the time on clothing and housewares. I'm not sure how they decide when to offer it and when to not offer it, but it is clearly used as an advertising tool to increase the comfort level of a buyer who's "appreciation" of the product will certainly be dependent on the details that can't be captured in a photo or a sizing chart. The retailer is saving money hand over fist by not needing to provide clerks and dressing rooms... so someone is clearly leveraging that into a way to get more sales... I'm just saying that without publishing a guideline about how many returns is appropriate this seems at odds with the way it is marketed.
However as others have pointed out, it seems likely that this is a different kind of abuse above and beyond just a picky buyer.
This seems at odds with the bold face type that says "free returns" on many clothing items and other things that must be seen in person to decide if you really want it. It would almost seem like they are enticing you with a no-risk proposition with the transaction... only to ban people who are actually utilizing it.
Well, getting at the heart of the question, was the Constitution written for the United states, or the world? Does our constitution guarantee these rights for everyone regardless of their nationality? I guess what I'm asking is if the constitution is what provides the right, and the constitution doesn't cover all people, then at some level it seems to make sense to verify the potential voter is in fact covered by the constitution... otherwise you're the biggest bank in town leaving your vault wide open while loudly proclaiming "please don't come in to this open vault and take anything that isn't yours."
My admittedly not very educated opinion, is that the effort required to _effectively_ vote (i.e. researching the candidates and issues prior to casting your vote) requires so much more effort than registering to vote, that it doesn't seem a very high barrier to voting to ask someone to be registered, or else vote provisionally. I guess what I'm saying is that if it is your civic duty to vote, then is it not also your duty to educate yourself on the issues on which you cast your vote? Otherwise, what would be the point of voting? It seems to me like the democratic process elevates itself above mob rule by this very mechanism, namely, being educated on the issues rather than voting based on what your chatty neighbor over the fence told you?
I agree with you that voting is not like driving, and surely to deny anyone the right to legally vote is a grievous issue. However I also argue that voting does not start when you walk up to the voting machine.
Is that true? I'm reaching way back in my history classes, but I thought you had to be a citizen to vote... it's not a human right, it's a civil right.
So you're telling me that DDNS propagates GLOBALLY in less than a minute? I understood that to be more like 24 hours (cite: https://www.google.com/search?...)... so I stand corrected. The last time I used a dynamic DNS service was about 6-7 years ago, and it was miserably unreliable at that time. I'm glad to hear it's improved. But it's also not free. This issue like the others circles back to the pretense that this a cheap and easy solution, when it is neither.
I'm glad we both agree that regardless of the details, this isn't practical for the majority of people.
You're telling me that I have no understanding of this??? What is the DNS propagation time for dynamic DNS changes? What is the expected gap in coverage when your IP changes relative to your expected consumer audience? Do you actually run dynamic DNS or did you just google that to throw it in my face?
That stuff could be a one click install if someone took the time to actually do it.
Then why does hardly anyone take the time to actually do it?
You need to step out of your bubble for a minute and consider: What percentage of people on this planet (or your country of choice if you like) are even aware of what a Raspberry Pi is? I'd bet it's less than 5% Of the people who are aware, what percentage would be even remotely capable of attempting what OP proposes? Again, I'd argue maybe 5%. So when.25% of a given population is capable of doing what OP proposes, I find it offensive to pretend like it's common knowledge, say it's easily achieved, or act incredulous that nobody is doing it. I for one believe that the remaining 99.75% of the worlds population should be equally able to achieve a similar level of information independence.
I'm speaking from experience here: I've tried, and I'm totally incapable of creating an independent, cross-platform, interoperable and secure software product that large amounts of people wish to use. If only I had a team of hundreds, perhaps thousands of software developers who were willing to help me build this product, and to do so without pay or adequate recognition.
This is bullshit. To do any of this, you have to run a static IP, which is still prohbited by many ISPs for consumer accounts. Sure you can pay more for a business class service (more money for less speed, at least it is in my market) but your talk of 2 watts minimal cost is moot considering the additional cost of service. Running your own fileserver, discussion board, and jabber might be possible for you but impractical for most people; even those people in tech. And besides, who's going to sign in to your discussion board? That's what we call an "anti-social network". I had a friend try it once, and maybe 8 people used his board for about a year, then abandoned it out of boredom. When everything you proposed is available as a "one click install" and is as secure as the software and services provided by big companies such as microsoft/amazon/whoever, then you can hand-wave all you want about how easy it is.
I appreciate this so much... I wish I had mod points for ya.
I've been a web/software dev for almost 20 years... but I'm totally unqualified to run my own email server. It's not that I can't learn it, it's just that to do it RIGHT, and to truly certify that it's safe and secure (I tried running my own email once in the early 2000's and wound up getting blacklisted because I accidentally left relaying open) takes too much time and effort for the value. The same can be said about so many of these things... if you spent the appropriate amount of time learning it so you could do it competently, you'd have no time to earn a living. So the alternative is to run someone else's pre-configured setup and *hope* they're more competent at it. But in the end, you have no real way of knowing. Sure you can download the open source software, but it inevitably it requires a DLL that uses a different license so you gotta go get that separately, and hope you get the right version. Then you realize it won't run on the hardware you have, so you google it and find some advice on how to work around it, but is that advice written by an expert? Or was it written by a hack who doesn't understand it any better than you do, or worse, written by someone who is motivated to undermine the stability of such systems. In almost every domain in computing that I've cared to look at I've found this same pattern. The barrier to getting it *running* is much much lower than the barrier to getting it running right.
Not trying to be pedantic, but nothing about the video implied that Musk had anything to do with this... You don't think that Tesla has other marketing dweebs trying just as hard to promote the brand? What about this stunt excludes continued work on the model 3?
Do you think airplanes use ADS-B for collision avoidance? I'm familiar with ADS-B, and I'm an avid user of RTL-SDR type radios. ADS-B is not going to give you the resolution necessary to keep such a small LZ safe. Distances between airplanes are measured in miles and (thousands of) feet. Takeoff and landing every 24 seconds will require safe operation within hundreds and dozens of feet. A whole new system would have to be created to deal with the size and agility of these types of vehicles. Have you ever tried to hail an Uber or Lyft in a busy environment such as a major airport, casino, or hotel? If Uber is successful at a flying service, do you really think all the other rideshare companies will leave them that business uncontested? No! Other companies will spring up and congest these tiny LZs with their own vehicles, to the point that safety will totally be compromised. We're talking about tens of thousands of pilots, and not seasoned experienced ones... we're talking about novice low wage gig economy workers flying these things. I have zero expectation that they will operate safely and conservatively.
This problem is actually not hard to solve
This actually IS hard to solve. When operating this closely you need more than just speed and direction, you need to solve intent. You need to solve multiple units nearby broadcasting multiple time sensitive vectors (to solve intent you need time bound vectors), and you need to solve operating rules during malicious jamming or other radio data failures, because when ADS-B fails, pilots can fall back to visual flight rules and can fall back on the tower (a locally centralized controller) and lacking that can still fall back to common sense. Decentralized systems like these fall back to the ground. If Uber can't solve safety in 2D, I don't think they'll be the first to solve it in 3D.
I think solving all of this is possible for a single company, but then you also need to solve it as a STANDARD that other companies can freely use, something that I doubt Uber or any other silicon valley startup is willing to do, because market dominance dictates that you never give an inch to your competitor.
That video is kind of disconcerting to me... the takeoff and landing point is the same spot. I'm sure it's not hard to fix, but using the same takeoff and landing point is sort of encouraging mid-air collisions. It clearly assumes all vehicles communicating their position with each other, which breaks when multiple competitors enter the space. Also, the vehicles are shown kind of round-robin-ing for the passengers to unload/board, but there are lots of use cases that will break this: 1) old people, people with disabilities and users with cargo could break the timing of the system 2) if this thing takes off (pun intended) then Uber won't be the only provider wanting to use the space, meaning that Lyft will want to compete for rides in the same areas, sort of replicating the type of chaos already seen with taxi queues and Uber/Lyft lines we currently see at large hotels and major airports. If only they had a way to control flight traffic locally to prevent collisions, and use a safe landing area that is far enough away from the passenger loading area to keep waiting passengers safe, and perhaps provide a nice structure to wait in, to keep passengers comfortable and out of the weather, then they could assign specific boarding areas or "gates" to each flight so that users knew where to be and at what time, so they could board the correct flight... oh wait. That's an airport.
Slashdot Mirror
You've missed the point... see, the internet is like a series of tubes... or tunnels
I'm in to machine learning, and this thing is right up my alley. It would be great to take my workstation with me to conferences rather than trying to VPN and remote into a rig, considering how bad the latency can get. I doubt I can personally field the cost though, so I'll not be having one any time soon. My current personal portable rig is (sadly) almost exactly 1/10 the specs of this in terms of RAM, GPU, and hard disk capacity. I would imagine that travel bloggers would love encoding video on a rig like this, and architects would love doing on-site design work with advanced CAD models with a rig like this too. Basically, anybody who has a hard-core workstation type workload who also needs to work while traveling is the target market for a system like this.
The people with the best skills to get themselves out of that position... I don't feel too bad for them. ;)
FCC Commissioners and Chair positions are not elected, they are nominated.
I should clarify: The guy was not a criminal... he was totally innocent of any wrongdoing. When I read your comment, you said *every criminal* and I internally read it as *every citizen*... I just don't want to imply the guy was guilty of anything.
True... I can't find it now, but there is a video of a cop shooting a black guy at a gas station. The cop walks up and asks for his ID, and the guy is so eager/worried that he quickly turns and dives back into his truck to get the ID, be he does it so quickly that the cop takes it as a sign that the guy is going for a weapon. Both sides are primed for a negative experience.
http://archive.sltrib.com/arti...
This is an interesting problem... if you look at nearly ALL police shootings, they typically seem unjustified from the general public's perspective, but the cops always say "the officer was in fear for his life"... and therefore it is somehow justified. The problem is the way the laws are written and the way police are trained. If you ever get to see police training materials, police conventions, or even the daily emails from the department, they are all oriented around the basic concept of "every interaction could kill you so be hyper vigilant so you can come home to your kids tonight." This creates a scenario where police see what they've been trained to see: a threat on their life. This is how a naked guy running away down a rural highway can get shot for "being a threat" despite the 911 caller telling the dispatcher that the person is suffering from a mental condition.
One thing I know from personal experience is the way the media twists facts to make things look salacious. My brother was nearly killed in an avalanche, and the media reported that he was skiing out of bounds, when in fact he was never on resort property, he was back-country skiing with friends in forest service property. They also made it seem like the group had taken HUGE risks, when in fact they had been prepared, planned their route ahead of time, brought appropriate equipment, recognized the emerging risks, mitigated them with strategy, then executed a perfect self-rescue after the avalanche. But telling a great story about self-reliance and preparedness isn't on the media's agenda so they spin it the way they want... I mention all of this because I expect no less from the media with a police shooting. I suspect there are situational things that made the cop think the way he did. How well lit was the front porch? How clear was his view? What unrelated events prior in the day may have primed him to see what he saw as a threat? The media doesn't want to give you a clear picture of how the situation unfolded, they want to induce you to quickly pass judgement and move on to the next story.
It was certainly a homicide, but I'm not sure the intent rises to murder. I think it's a systemic problem throughout our entire police system. The police know how the law is written, so they train specifically to that loophole. If we tighten the loophole, fewer people can fit through. I'd love to see the laws change in that regard.
I came here to say this... I can't imagine a world where any US company could be broken up by an external union / country. I suppose they mean by proxy by denying them assets, facilities, and advertising revenue (they could certainly make it illegal for a German company to pay for advertising on Facebook)... but directly? Surely they don't have that kind of reach and Zuck knows it. Eventually the lack of advertising dollars would induce Facebook to stop wanting to serve those users due to the burden it puts on the system, but I wonder if there is enough US advertising dollars aimed at foreign countries to still make it worth it. It's not like the users are going to willingly leave because they aren't being advertised to.
But free returns are specifically offered on things that have a lower likelyhood of suitability based on product type. I've never seen it available for electronics, appliances, tools, etc. But I see it all the time on clothing and housewares. I'm not sure how they decide when to offer it and when to not offer it, but it is clearly used as an advertising tool to increase the comfort level of a buyer who's "appreciation" of the product will certainly be dependent on the details that can't be captured in a photo or a sizing chart. The retailer is saving money hand over fist by not needing to provide clerks and dressing rooms... so someone is clearly leveraging that into a way to get more sales... I'm just saying that without publishing a guideline about how many returns is appropriate this seems at odds with the way it is marketed.
However as others have pointed out, it seems likely that this is a different kind of abuse above and beyond just a picky buyer.
This seems at odds with the bold face type that says "free returns" on many clothing items and other things that must be seen in person to decide if you really want it. It would almost seem like they are enticing you with a no-risk proposition with the transaction... only to ban people who are actually utilizing it.
Well, getting at the heart of the question, was the Constitution written for the United states, or the world? Does our constitution guarantee these rights for everyone regardless of their nationality? I guess what I'm asking is if the constitution is what provides the right, and the constitution doesn't cover all people, then at some level it seems to make sense to verify the potential voter is in fact covered by the constitution... otherwise you're the biggest bank in town leaving your vault wide open while loudly proclaiming "please don't come in to this open vault and take anything that isn't yours."
My admittedly not very educated opinion, is that the effort required to _effectively_ vote (i.e. researching the candidates and issues prior to casting your vote) requires so much more effort than registering to vote, that it doesn't seem a very high barrier to voting to ask someone to be registered, or else vote provisionally. I guess what I'm saying is that if it is your civic duty to vote, then is it not also your duty to educate yourself on the issues on which you cast your vote? Otherwise, what would be the point of voting? It seems to me like the democratic process elevates itself above mob rule by this very mechanism, namely, being educated on the issues rather than voting based on what your chatty neighbor over the fence told you?
I agree with you that voting is not like driving, and surely to deny anyone the right to legally vote is a grievous issue. However I also argue that voting does not start when you walk up to the voting machine.
Is that true? I'm reaching way back in my history classes, but I thought you had to be a citizen to vote... it's not a human right, it's a civil right.
So you're telling me that DDNS propagates GLOBALLY in less than a minute? I understood that to be more like 24 hours (cite: https://www.google.com/search?...)... so I stand corrected. The last time I used a dynamic DNS service was about 6-7 years ago, and it was miserably unreliable at that time. I'm glad to hear it's improved. But it's also not free. This issue like the others circles back to the pretense that this a cheap and easy solution, when it is neither.
I'm glad we both agree that regardless of the details, this isn't practical for the majority of people.
You're telling me that I have no understanding of this??? What is the DNS propagation time for dynamic DNS changes? What is the expected gap in coverage when your IP changes relative to your expected consumer audience? Do you actually run dynamic DNS or did you just google that to throw it in my face?
That stuff could be a one click install if someone took the time to actually do it.
Then why does hardly anyone take the time to actually do it?
You need to step out of your bubble for a minute and consider: What percentage of people on this planet (or your country of choice if you like) are even aware of what a Raspberry Pi is? I'd bet it's less than 5% Of the people who are aware, what percentage would be even remotely capable of attempting what OP proposes? Again, I'd argue maybe 5%. So when .25% of a given population is capable of doing what OP proposes, I find it offensive to pretend like it's common knowledge, say it's easily achieved, or act incredulous that nobody is doing it. I for one believe that the remaining 99.75% of the worlds population should be equally able to achieve a similar level of information independence.
I'm speaking from experience here: I've tried, and I'm totally incapable of creating an independent, cross-platform, interoperable and secure software product that large amounts of people wish to use. If only I had a team of hundreds, perhaps thousands of software developers who were willing to help me build this product, and to do so without pay or adequate recognition.
This is bullshit. To do any of this, you have to run a static IP, which is still prohbited by many ISPs for consumer accounts. Sure you can pay more for a business class service (more money for less speed, at least it is in my market) but your talk of 2 watts minimal cost is moot considering the additional cost of service. Running your own fileserver, discussion board, and jabber might be possible for you but impractical for most people; even those people in tech. And besides, who's going to sign in to your discussion board? That's what we call an "anti-social network". I had a friend try it once, and maybe 8 people used his board for about a year, then abandoned it out of boredom. When everything you proposed is available as a "one click install" and is as secure as the software and services provided by big companies such as microsoft/amazon/whoever, then you can hand-wave all you want about how easy it is.
I appreciate this so much... I wish I had mod points for ya.
I've been a web/software dev for almost 20 years... but I'm totally unqualified to run my own email server. It's not that I can't learn it, it's just that to do it RIGHT, and to truly certify that it's safe and secure (I tried running my own email once in the early 2000's and wound up getting blacklisted because I accidentally left relaying open) takes too much time and effort for the value. The same can be said about so many of these things... if you spent the appropriate amount of time learning it so you could do it competently, you'd have no time to earn a living. So the alternative is to run someone else's pre-configured setup and *hope* they're more competent at it. But in the end, you have no real way of knowing. Sure you can download the open source software, but it inevitably it requires a DLL that uses a different license so you gotta go get that separately, and hope you get the right version. Then you realize it won't run on the hardware you have, so you google it and find some advice on how to work around it, but is that advice written by an expert? Or was it written by a hack who doesn't understand it any better than you do, or worse, written by someone who is motivated to undermine the stability of such systems. In almost every domain in computing that I've cared to look at I've found this same pattern. The barrier to getting it *running* is much much lower than the barrier to getting it running right.
Not trying to be pedantic, but nothing about the video implied that Musk had anything to do with this... You don't think that Tesla has other marketing dweebs trying just as hard to promote the brand? What about this stunt excludes continued work on the model 3?
We won't have any dino-juice left to fuel this argument 100 years from now.
... Well played sir.
"There can be only one Lord of the Rings, only one who can bend them to his will. And he does not share power!"
I came here to say this... Who is asking for these features?
Do you think airplanes use ADS-B for collision avoidance? I'm familiar with ADS-B, and I'm an avid user of RTL-SDR type radios. ADS-B is not going to give you the resolution necessary to keep such a small LZ safe. Distances between airplanes are measured in miles and (thousands of) feet. Takeoff and landing every 24 seconds will require safe operation within hundreds and dozens of feet. A whole new system would have to be created to deal with the size and agility of these types of vehicles. Have you ever tried to hail an Uber or Lyft in a busy environment such as a major airport, casino, or hotel? If Uber is successful at a flying service, do you really think all the other rideshare companies will leave them that business uncontested? No! Other companies will spring up and congest these tiny LZs with their own vehicles, to the point that safety will totally be compromised. We're talking about tens of thousands of pilots, and not seasoned experienced ones... we're talking about novice low wage gig economy workers flying these things. I have zero expectation that they will operate safely and conservatively.
This problem is actually not hard to solve
This actually IS hard to solve. When operating this closely you need more than just speed and direction, you need to solve intent. You need to solve multiple units nearby broadcasting multiple time sensitive vectors (to solve intent you need time bound vectors), and you need to solve operating rules during malicious jamming or other radio data failures, because when ADS-B fails, pilots can fall back to visual flight rules and can fall back on the tower (a locally centralized controller) and lacking that can still fall back to common sense. Decentralized systems like these fall back to the ground. If Uber can't solve safety in 2D, I don't think they'll be the first to solve it in 3D.
I think solving all of this is possible for a single company, but then you also need to solve it as a STANDARD that other companies can freely use, something that I doubt Uber or any other silicon valley startup is willing to do, because market dominance dictates that you never give an inch to your competitor.
That video is kind of disconcerting to me... the takeoff and landing point is the same spot. I'm sure it's not hard to fix, but using the same takeoff and landing point is sort of encouraging mid-air collisions. It clearly assumes all vehicles communicating their position with each other, which breaks when multiple competitors enter the space. Also, the vehicles are shown kind of round-robin-ing for the passengers to unload/board, but there are lots of use cases that will break this: 1) old people, people with disabilities and users with cargo could break the timing of the system 2) if this thing takes off (pun intended) then Uber won't be the only provider wanting to use the space, meaning that Lyft will want to compete for rides in the same areas, sort of replicating the type of chaos already seen with taxi queues and Uber/Lyft lines we currently see at large hotels and major airports. If only they had a way to control flight traffic locally to prevent collisions, and use a safe landing area that is far enough away from the passenger loading area to keep waiting passengers safe, and perhaps provide a nice structure to wait in, to keep passengers comfortable and out of the weather, then they could assign specific boarding areas or "gates" to each flight so that users knew where to be and at what time, so they could board the correct flight... oh wait. That's an airport.
Sorry, you are correct.... I went and educated myself and determined my assumptions where wrong
Holy shit! Do you have any idea what site you're on?!?!? You can't talk like that here!
This was an ICBM: https://www.npr.org/2016/09/15...
Also, a good audio production of the same: https://www.thisamericanlife.o...