It's a common affliction in the rabid Tesla fan community. People seem to forget that companies aren't their friends, and are loyal to a specific brand no matter what evidence is out there proving that the company is actively out to get them.
So in other words, false advertising is fine, they should be allowed to do it.
Removing functionality from a product after purchase is also fine, they should definitely be allowed to remove any functionality they want after purchase. If I wake up tomorrow and the car is incapable of being put in to drive, that's fine too, after all, I must have just misunderstood their advertising that said it could drive.
I've provided proof of their lies. I've documented what the vehicle could do when I bought it that it can no longer do. The former is FRAUD, the latter is THEFT of functionality.
I own the car, they don't. They're not allowed to remove functionality after purchase. They took money based on specific promises, they are not allowed to take that money without providing what they promised in their contract.
But of course none of that matters, because I can't afford tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, plus many many hours of my life to sue them.
All I can do is warn other people not to do business with this super slimy company, and make sure that I never give them another penny as long as I live.
Learning is a great goal on it's own, and I frequently do things for that purpose. But you can't equate that to buying off the shelf components, and frequently if you look at your actual total cost it's a lot higher than buying off the shelf.
It's not that simple for human drivers, why would it be that simple for computer drivers?
People have lost major lawsuits while following all the traffic laws because they killed someone when they didn't have to. Computers will be the same. If there's an action it could reasonably have taken to prevent loss of life, but failed to do so, the manufacturer will be sued, and based on precedent, they'll lose.
I wish I were joking, the vast majority of the cheaper ones require proprietary windows only drivers. It's harder for a company to build them that way, but they do it anyway.
Computers don't have an equivalent to "just react". Computers make decisions, they always do one thing, or another, never do they "just react". You specifically have to program which thing every computer will do.
And it is 100% guaranteed to be required to make a specific choice. it WILL be government mandated, it's only a matter of if the requirement comes before, or after, a driverless car kills someone.
Do you want your self driving car to kill the child?
Do you really think that if swerving was an option and you chose not to, that nobody would think you liable? do you want to defend that lawsuit? People have lost those lawsuits in the past. Do you want to be next?
I specifically paid for "hands free on-ramp to off-ramp driving" per Tesla. They never delivered on that functionality, but they did remove much of the parts they had delivered after purchase. I've included a small sample of the lies Tesla made to make the sale, along with proof of the claims, and a description of what they've actually delivered:
Claim #1: Tesla claimed that an alert driver could use the “Autopilot” feature to drive along a highway without touching any controls, as long as the driver was paying attention and ready to take over at any time. Examples of claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Elon Musk (CEO Tesla Motors) demonstrates the feature to a journalist in October 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... A Tesla employee demonstrates the feature to attendees at the Tesla “D” event in October 2014 http://www.stuff.tv/in/feature... Elon Musk (CEO Tesla Motors) in an interview in March 2015 states “We want you to go from highway on-ramp to highway off-ramp, without touching the controls, in the next 12 months” What Tesla has delivered: In October 2015 Tesla released a software update that enabled “Autopilot”. This included a feature called “Autosteer” which came with a disclaimer that you must keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times. If your hands were not detected exerting torque on the steering wheel at road curves, the vehicle would pop up a warning asking you to place your hands on the wheel. This warning would intensify until either you applied torque to the steering wheel, or Autopilot would be disabled. In subsequent software updates the frequency, and intensity of the popup message was increased, and if the message occurs a certain number of times per drive the feature is completely disabled for the remainder of the drive. Additionally restrictions have been placed on it such that on some roadways the speed you can travel while on autosteer is limited to what the vehicle believes the speed limit to be.
Claim #2: Tesla claimed that drivers could use the “Summon” feature (part of the “Autopilot” suite) to call the vehicle and it would drive to them wherever they were on private property. Additionally Tesla claimed that the vehicle would check your schedule and pull out of your garage and meet you at your front door on private property. Examples of claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Recording of the Tesla Motors “D” event where the “AutoPilot” functionality was initially revealed. Elon musk (CEO Tesla Motors) states at 9:55 “You’ll be able to summon the car, if you’re on private property, you have to be on private property to do it, you can actually summon the car and the car will come to wherever you are and, it will use the ultrasonic sensors kind of like an insect antenna, because it can detect even small soft objects with the ultrasonics, and it will just sort of slowly make it’s way to you and then stop and be ready to go. It can go even a step beyond that, if you have your calendar turned on, it will meet you there. So if you’re getting ready to go to work or something and it knows you’re going to need to leave half an hour before work and you say ok I’d like to just come out and have the air conditioning done and everything done, your music playing, everything just ready to go and it will just come and be there.” http://web.archive.org/web/201... Snapshot of the Tesla Motors website from July 16 2015, in the “Autopilot” section states “With calendar syncing enabled, Model S checks current traffic conditions to determine how muc
Easily, child runs out in to the street right in front of your car, no room to stop by braking, swerve to avoid. Car backs out of parking spot without looking without room to stop, swerve to avoid. Load falls off the truck in front of you on the highway, swerve to the adjacent lane to avoid.
This is an extremely common type of situation and if you are not capable of doing it without thinking you simply shouldn't be on the road.
later on, almost guaranteed. But initially? no, the first self driving cars will be like todays cars, but with self driving. Later they'll evolve to more relaxing spaces. For seems to think that that evolution would be needed first, but it isn't. You can design a car like today's cars that self drives, but you can't design a car like you propose without it.
If you care about these things and care about proprietary software why are you not rolling your own? I assume you have the skills if you know enough to have those concerns.
And this is my biggest issue with the open source community in general, "if you know there's a problem you must also know enough to fix it". No, just no.
NAS is just another way of saying "low-performance dedicated file server" after all
No, NAS is a way of saying HIGH performance dedicated file server. if you want low performance use whatever garbage you have lying around.
I have made one that is also a media server, seedbox, and a half dozen other things with 9TB of raid and 2GBps of bandwidth for $300
and probably uses 10 times as much power as a box designed for that purpose.
and have been thinking about installing a solar setup for it with 3 days of backup power. Would cost about $550 and pay itself off during the device lifetime.
Which proves that it uses too much power. a dedicated NAS box shouldn't be using $550 worth of power (especially if you add in the value of your time to build) in it's lifetime.
I bet building your own would have taken less time than what you did looking for a "cheap, fast, power efficient, non-proprietary" unicorn.
And would have been guaranteed to miss at least one of those criteria, if not more than one. (yours missed on both price and power usage)
Significantly faster??? ummmm... you just lost all credibility.
A proper dedicated NAS device is as fast as the drive can read/write (maybe faster for commonly accessed data due to caching) and as fast as the network can transfer data. Your cobbled together solution can be as fast, but it can not be faster.
As for power efficiency, you claim if using a proper embedded solution it can be more power efficient than the proper dedicated NAS, but again, a proper dedicated NAS is already doing that, so at most you can strive to be as power efficient, but not more so.
So what you're telling me is that your cobbled together solution will be a lot more work, probably cost as much, and if you're lucky, might perform as well. Hardly a glowing endorsement.
If swerving could obviously have avoided the collision,and you don't do it, you're probably liable, and even if you aren't liable in the terms of the highway code, you're likely liable from lawsuits from whatever you hit.
I returned 3 different NAS devices to the store before finding a NAS device that didn't require custom proprietary (windows only) software to be installed on every device accessing them. I ended up having to pay double to get one that would support standards vs the proprietary ones.
I looked at a dozen portable USB powered monitors before finding one that supported HDMI and therefore didn't need custom (windows only) drivers installed on every device using it. I ended up having to pay more than triple to get one that would support standards vs the proprietary ones.
And that's the big problem, standards compliant hardware usually costs double or more what the proprietary stuff does, despite the fact that it should actually be easier/cheaper to produce.
That's somewhat unhelpful advice for people who owned the product before the company became evil and retroactively changed the contract.
People paid quite a bit of money for a product, and then the company turns around and destroys it after the fact, now the solution is to go back in time, and not buy the product?
A better answer would be to make it illegal to make the continuing functioning of the features you paid for contingent on you agreeing to a change in terms of the contract.
Having been the victim of a company (Tesla) modifying a product after purchase to remove functionality that I specifically paid for, I have discovered that while it may be illegal, you'll need major $$$ to do anything about it. Not a single consumer protection agency in the country will do any more than forward your complaint to the manufacturer who can then feel free to ignore it completely.
So unless you can afford a long drawn out legal battle with a company that is guaranteed to have a lot more money to throw at lawyers than you do, good luck.
Humans can look around a single raindrop on a window, a camera can not. Take your windshield, place a 1" diameter piece of mud on it, and try to drive, no problem right? now place that 1" diameter piece of mud directly in front of the camera that only has a 3/4" lens and see how well it does. On the windshield there are wipers and washers to clear that camera, no other camera on the car has that.
Beyond that, if your whole window gets covered, you can stop, get out, clean the window, and continue (though you'd need several square feet of snow/slush/mud to be a problem). Your self driving car which needs less than a square inch of dirt to be completely blinded can prompt you to do the same if you're in the car, but if you send it to pick your kid up at school and you're not in the car, what's it to do?
It is illegal to import a vehicle newer than 15 years old in to Canada unless you are the manufacturer of said vehicle, AND are on a specific list of manufacturers allowed to import, AND the vehicle has never been sold to someone else fist. AND the vehicle is certified to meet all Canadian standards. The only exception is certain vehicles from the USA, but only if the manufacturer has specifically authorized that exact model to be imported, AND has provided a letter stating that that specific vehicle (by VIN) has no outstanding recalls, AND the vehicle must be modified to meet all Canadian regulations before being registered, AND must pass an out of province safety inspection before being registered.
The auto industry has lobbied hard to make sure you MUST buy through them.
In what world does an emergency stop always bring you to a full stop before impact, and is always a better choice than swerving?
Automated vehicles will be far safer than existing human powered ones, but even they will not be 100% perfect, and will not have perfect knowledge. They can not stop an obstacle from appearing from behind something without enough time to stop in all situations.
A car that's only possible reaction to that situation is to slam on the brakes and hope, would be a horrible design as many times a collision can be avoided by swerving instead. And this comes back to the liability. Even if you don't cause a collision, if you could have reasonably done something to avoid it, but did not, you share some of the liability.
Slashdot Mirror
Hence the 2-3 times the price part. That's how you get one that's standards compliant.
It's a common affliction in the rabid Tesla fan community. People seem to forget that companies aren't their friends, and are loyal to a specific brand no matter what evidence is out there proving that the company is actively out to get them.
So in other words, false advertising is fine, they should be allowed to do it.
Removing functionality from a product after purchase is also fine, they should definitely be allowed to remove any functionality they want after purchase. If I wake up tomorrow and the car is incapable of being put in to drive, that's fine too, after all, I must have just misunderstood their advertising that said it could drive.
I've provided proof of their lies. I've documented what the vehicle could do when I bought it that it can no longer do. The former is FRAUD, the latter is THEFT of functionality.
I own the car, they don't. They're not allowed to remove functionality after purchase.
They took money based on specific promises, they are not allowed to take that money without providing what they promised in their contract.
But of course none of that matters, because I can't afford tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, plus many many hours of my life to sue them.
All I can do is warn other people not to do business with this super slimy company, and make sure that I never give them another penny as long as I live.
Learning is a great goal on it's own, and I frequently do things for that purpose. But you can't equate that to buying off the shelf components, and frequently if you look at your actual total cost it's a lot higher than buying off the shelf.
It's not that simple for human drivers, why would it be that simple for computer drivers?
People have lost major lawsuits while following all the traffic laws because they killed someone when they didn't have to. Computers will be the same. If there's an action it could reasonably have taken to prevent loss of life, but failed to do so, the manufacturer will be sued, and based on precedent, they'll lose.
I wish I were joking, the vast majority of the cheaper ones require proprietary windows only drivers. It's harder for a company to build them that way, but they do it anyway.
Computers don't have an equivalent to "just react". Computers make decisions, they always do one thing, or another, never do they "just react". You specifically have to program which thing every computer will do.
And it is 100% guaranteed to be required to make a specific choice. it WILL be government mandated, it's only a matter of if the requirement comes before, or after, a driverless car kills someone.
Do you want to kill the child?
Do you want your self driving car to kill the child?
Do you really think that if swerving was an option and you chose not to, that nobody would think you liable? do you want to defend that lawsuit? People have lost those lawsuits in the past. Do you want to be next?
Or you can buy a dedicated NAS device for under $500, under $300 if you'll put up with proprietary stuff.
I specifically paid for "hands free on-ramp to off-ramp driving" per Tesla. They never delivered on that functionality, but they did remove much of the parts they had delivered after purchase. I've included a small sample of the lies Tesla made to make the sale, along with proof of the claims, and a description of what they've actually delivered:
Claim #1: Tesla claimed that an alert driver could use the “Autopilot” feature to drive along a highway without touching any controls, as long as the driver was paying attention and ready to take over at any time.
Examples of claim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Elon Musk (CEO Tesla Motors) demonstrates the feature to a journalist in October 2014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... A Tesla employee demonstrates the feature to attendees at the Tesla “D” event in October 2014
http://www.stuff.tv/in/feature... Elon Musk (CEO Tesla Motors) in an interview in March 2015 states “We want you to go from highway on-ramp to highway off-ramp, without touching the controls, in the next 12 months”
What Tesla has delivered: In October 2015 Tesla released a software update that enabled “Autopilot”. This included a feature called “Autosteer” which came with a disclaimer that you must keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times. If your hands were not detected exerting torque on the steering wheel at road curves, the vehicle would pop up a warning asking you to place your hands on the wheel. This warning would intensify until either you applied torque to the steering wheel, or Autopilot would be disabled. In subsequent software updates the frequency, and intensity of the popup message was increased, and if the message occurs a certain number of times per drive the feature is completely disabled for the remainder of the drive. Additionally restrictions have been placed on it such that on some roadways the speed you can travel while on autosteer is limited to what the vehicle believes the speed limit to be.
Claim #2: Tesla claimed that drivers could use the “Summon” feature (part of the “Autopilot” suite) to call the vehicle and it would drive to them wherever they were on private property. Additionally Tesla claimed that the vehicle would check your schedule and pull out of your garage and meet you at your front door on private property.
Examples of claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Recording of the Tesla Motors “D” event where the “AutoPilot” functionality was initially revealed. Elon musk (CEO Tesla Motors) states at 9:55 “You’ll be able to summon the car, if you’re on private property, you have to be on private property to do it, you can actually summon the car and the car will come to wherever you are and, it will use the ultrasonic sensors kind of like an insect antenna, because it can detect even small soft objects with the ultrasonics, and it will just sort of slowly make it’s way to you and then stop and be ready to go. It can go even a step beyond that, if you have your calendar turned on, it will meet you there. So if you’re getting ready to go to work or something and it knows you’re going to need to leave half an hour before work and you say ok I’d like to just come out and have the air conditioning done and everything done, your music playing, everything just ready to go and it will just come and be there.”
http://web.archive.org/web/201... Snapshot of the Tesla Motors website from July 16 2015, in the “Autopilot” section states “With calendar syncing enabled, Model S checks current traffic conditions to determine how muc
Hands free on-ramp to off-ramp driving, ability to use autopilot at any speed on any roadway.
Easily, child runs out in to the street right in front of your car, no room to stop by braking, swerve to avoid. Car backs out of parking spot without looking without room to stop, swerve to avoid. Load falls off the truck in front of you on the highway, swerve to the adjacent lane to avoid.
This is an extremely common type of situation and if you are not capable of doing it without thinking you simply shouldn't be on the road.
Your under load power use sounds fine, but your idle power use sounds extremely high.
later on, almost guaranteed. But initially? no, the first self driving cars will be like todays cars, but with self driving. Later they'll evolve to more relaxing spaces. For seems to think that that evolution would be needed first, but it isn't. You can design a car like today's cars that self drives, but you can't design a car like you propose without it.
If you care about these things and care about proprietary software why are you not rolling your own? I assume you have the skills if you know enough to have those concerns.
And this is my biggest issue with the open source community in general, "if you know there's a problem you must also know enough to fix it". No, just no.
NAS is just another way of saying "low-performance dedicated file server" after all
No, NAS is a way of saying HIGH performance dedicated file server. if you want low performance use whatever garbage you have lying around.
I have made one that is also a media server, seedbox, and a half dozen other things with 9TB of raid and 2GBps of bandwidth for $300
and probably uses 10 times as much power as a box designed for that purpose.
and have been thinking about installing a solar setup for it with 3 days of backup power. Would cost about $550 and pay itself off during the device lifetime.
Which proves that it uses too much power. a dedicated NAS box shouldn't be using $550 worth of power (especially if you add in the value of your time to build) in it's lifetime.
I bet building your own would have taken less time than what you did looking for a "cheap, fast, power efficient, non-proprietary" unicorn.
And would have been guaranteed to miss at least one of those criteria, if not more than one. (yours missed on both price and power usage)
Significantly faster??? ummmm... you just lost all credibility.
A proper dedicated NAS device is as fast as the drive can read/write (maybe faster for commonly accessed data due to caching) and as fast as the network can transfer data. Your cobbled together solution can be as fast, but it can not be faster.
As for power efficiency, you claim if using a proper embedded solution it can be more power efficient than the proper dedicated NAS, but again, a proper dedicated NAS is already doing that, so at most you can strive to be as power efficient, but not more so.
So what you're telling me is that your cobbled together solution will be a lot more work, probably cost as much, and if you're lucky, might perform as well. Hardly a glowing endorsement.
But is it as fast and as power efficient?
If swerving could obviously have avoided the collision,and you don't do it, you're probably liable, and even if you aren't liable in the terms of the highway code, you're likely liable from lawsuits from whatever you hit.
I returned 3 different NAS devices to the store before finding a NAS device that didn't require custom proprietary (windows only) software to be installed on every device accessing them. I ended up having to pay double to get one that would support standards vs the proprietary ones.
I looked at a dozen portable USB powered monitors before finding one that supported HDMI and therefore didn't need custom (windows only) drivers installed on every device using it. I ended up having to pay more than triple to get one that would support standards vs the proprietary ones.
And that's the big problem, standards compliant hardware usually costs double or more what the proprietary stuff does, despite the fact that it should actually be easier/cheaper to produce.
The new corporate creed.
That's somewhat unhelpful advice for people who owned the product before the company became evil and retroactively changed the contract.
People paid quite a bit of money for a product, and then the company turns around and destroys it after the fact, now the solution is to go back in time, and not buy the product?
A better answer would be to make it illegal to make the continuing functioning of the features you paid for contingent on you agreeing to a change in terms of the contract.
Having been the victim of a company (Tesla) modifying a product after purchase to remove functionality that I specifically paid for, I have discovered that while it may be illegal, you'll need major $$$ to do anything about it. Not a single consumer protection agency in the country will do any more than forward your complaint to the manufacturer who can then feel free to ignore it completely.
So unless you can afford a long drawn out legal battle with a company that is guaranteed to have a lot more money to throw at lawyers than you do, good luck.
Humans can look around a single raindrop on a window, a camera can not. Take your windshield, place a 1" diameter piece of mud on it, and try to drive, no problem right? now place that 1" diameter piece of mud directly in front of the camera that only has a 3/4" lens and see how well it does. On the windshield there are wipers and washers to clear that camera, no other camera on the car has that.
Beyond that, if your whole window gets covered, you can stop, get out, clean the window, and continue (though you'd need several square feet of snow/slush/mud to be a problem). Your self driving car which needs less than a square inch of dirt to be completely blinded can prompt you to do the same if you're in the car, but if you send it to pick your kid up at school and you're not in the car, what's it to do?
It is illegal to import a vehicle newer than 15 years old in to Canada unless you are the manufacturer of said vehicle, AND are on a specific list of manufacturers allowed to import, AND the vehicle has never been sold to someone else fist. AND the vehicle is certified to meet all Canadian standards.
The only exception is certain vehicles from the USA, but only if the manufacturer has specifically authorized that exact model to be imported, AND has provided a letter stating that that specific vehicle (by VIN) has no outstanding recalls, AND the vehicle must be modified to meet all Canadian regulations before being registered, AND must pass an out of province safety inspection before being registered.
The auto industry has lobbied hard to make sure you MUST buy through them.
In what world does an emergency stop always bring you to a full stop before impact, and is always a better choice than swerving?
Automated vehicles will be far safer than existing human powered ones, but even they will not be 100% perfect, and will not have perfect knowledge. They can not stop an obstacle from appearing from behind something without enough time to stop in all situations.
A car that's only possible reaction to that situation is to slam on the brakes and hope, would be a horrible design as many times a collision can be avoided by swerving instead. And this comes back to the liability. Even if you don't cause a collision, if you could have reasonably done something to avoid it, but did not, you share some of the liability.