Absolutely incorrect. The plastic remains flexible, so doesn't shatter. But even baring that. Don't be stupid and use appropriate thickness of materials where necessary.
Sure, I'll compare it to plastic which, if you recall, used to be the predominant screen material. Plastic screens shattered almost never, and didn't have the huge glare problems present in modern handhelds. The downside was slightly less scratch resistance, but a screen protector handles that nicely, and large portions of the population use those on gorilla glass anyway.
Someone named it the automobile, and we all know what auto means. So your average person will assume that all cars drive themselves. Someone named it cruise control, and if it can control the cruising of the vehicle the average person will think it can drive itself.
Morons will be morons, they've been killing themselves and others for centuries, renaming a feature so that it does a worse job of describing what it actually does will not stop morons from killing people.
Exactly, it keeps a heading, that's all. A plane on autopilot will happily fly in to a mountain if you don't stop it, all it does is follow the set trajectory. The car does more because it follows lane markings instead of just a straight line, but neither one drives itself. And only the car does any collision avoidance whatsoever. Autopilot is a great name for this product. It implies a system that assists the driver, while the driver maintains full control at all times. Just like a pilot does on an aircraft.
Autopilots on planes don't fly the planes by themselves. Autopilot on boats don't drive the boats by themselves. Why would any moron believe that autopilot on a car would be so completely different from autopilot on any other vehicle?
If we had always taken that advice, the wheel would never have been invented. Progress requires that the idiots and the lawyers get out of the way some times.
The vast majority of owners use the system properly. The solution to idiots like this is not to cripple the system and stop looking for improvements, it's to point out that they are idiots and that you don't condone their actions.
1) never in the history of transportation, in any mode, has autopilot even vaguely resembled autonomous. Autopilot has existed on boasts and airplanes for decades and does not attempt to avoid a collision in any way shape or form. Tesla's autopilot system is way ahead of anything else that bears the name autopilot. But only a complete and utter moron would believe that it can drive itself. 2) I have not seen such videos, but they wouldn't prove anything unless tesla claimed that this was A) a production vehicle and B) a recommended practice. 3) autopilot is something amazing. It's a better cruse control system than exists on any other production car in the world. That doesn't imply in any way that it does more than that. "Amazing" is a qualifier not a quantifier. It says how well something does a task not how much of a task it does. Tesla have never claimed it drives itself. Not a single time.
I would need to see context. Elon often talks about the future of transportation, I'm not sure that that quote was in relation to any current product.
As for "calling it auto-pilot"... I'm not sure how that's in any way confusing. Autopilot is generally an aeronautic term, however has also been used in nautical situations in the past. It refers to a system in many ways less advanced than that which Tesla has implemented. Neither the marine, nor aircraft versions of autopilot do ANY collision avoidance. So why would you expect the automotive one to drive by itself when the airplane and boat ones don't????
Tesla has NEVER claimed autonomous driving. Not a single time. They specifically call it AutoPilot in reference to the aircraft systems which require pilots to maintain full control at all times, and which make zero attempt at all to avoid any form of collision. Tesla has always been perfectly clear that this is a driver assist feature, akin to autopilot in planes, they've never claimed any form of autonomy here.
There's one person, and only one person, that was 100% responsible for this incident, and that's the idiot who drove in to the side of a truck while watching a DVD.
As I said before, I'm no Tesla fanboy, they do LOTS wrong, but this simply isn't one of those cases.
It's not the "default" behaviour, it's the idiotic and suicidal behaviour. So far, the "vast majority" of people have used it the way it's supposed to be used. But a couple of idiots have been stupid and tried to Darwin themselves.
Actively being engaged is still the default behaviour, and there's a very apparent need to do so if you've ever tried using it.
If autopilot on planes allowed you to do away with pilots, why do all airliners still have 2 on board?
The fact is that the Tesla autopilot system does more than the system on a plane. Planes won't avoid other plants or mountains at all, they'll simply fly in a straight line.
So it's only misleading in that it does MORE than the name implies.
Unfortunately a lot of morons seem to think it means self driving, which it explicitly does not, nor has tesla ever claimed such capability.
Why would you expect the autopilot to detect this? Tesla has never advertised it as doing so, they've never advertised it as self driving, they've always said it's just driver assistance, and in fact they warn you of such every single time you enable the system.
Tesla does many things wrong, and I'm frequently pointing them out, but this wasn't one of them.
People said exactly the same thing about cruise control when it first came out too. But then it was shown that by taking away the routine throttle adjustments, and the discomfort of holding your leg in exactly the same position for hours on end, driving actually became safer.
Same thing here, I drive on autopilot daily, and by not having to to worry about the routine, I can focus my attention more fully on my environment to better anticipate potential problems ahead.
Unfortunately the world is full of absolute idiots and lawyers who will ruin it for those of us who use the system add it was intended, as it was advertised, and add the warning that you acknowledge every single time you enable the system tells you.
So what you're saying is that they do not feel it adds value. When you're having trouble making ends meet, you cut things that don't add value, you don't cut the things that make you money.
Interestingly the summary also makes no mention whatsoever of any malware, only a tool that roots your device. That would be a good thing, not a bad thing.
Now obviously they're implying that the app also does something evil once it has root, but they rely should say so.
The way this is written is as if to imply that having any control over the hardware that you own is a horrible thing.
Wrong again! There are many examples out there of exactly this. Duplicating cards using these scanners. It's been done many many times.
You shilling for the banks doesn't do anyone any favours.
The "bad guy" can, and has in the past, buy stuff with your card. The bank WILL NOT reverse the charge, because they believe the same lies that you do that it's not possible to duplicate the cards, and therefore claim that the fraud must be on the part of the cardholder. This too has happened already, with the fraud victim actually being arrested for fraud because someone copied his card.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely incorrect. The plastic remains flexible, so doesn't shatter. But even baring that. Don't be stupid and use appropriate thickness of materials where necessary.
Sure, I'll compare it to plastic which, if you recall, used to be the predominant screen material. Plastic screens shattered almost never, and didn't have the huge glare problems present in modern handhelds.
The downside was slightly less scratch resistance, but a screen protector handles that nicely, and large portions of the population use those on gorilla glass anyway.
Someone named it the automobile, and we all know what auto means. So your average person will assume that all cars drive themselves.
Someone named it cruise control, and if it can control the cruising of the vehicle the average person will think it can drive itself.
Morons will be morons, they've been killing themselves and others for centuries, renaming a feature so that it does a worse job of describing what it actually does will not stop morons from killing people.
Exactly, it keeps a heading, that's all. A plane on autopilot will happily fly in to a mountain if you don't stop it, all it does is follow the set trajectory. The car does more because it follows lane markings instead of just a straight line, but neither one drives itself. And only the car does any collision avoidance whatsoever.
Autopilot is a great name for this product. It implies a system that assists the driver, while the driver maintains full control at all times. Just like a pilot does on an aircraft.
Autopilots on planes don't fly the planes by themselves. Autopilot on boats don't drive the boats by themselves. Why would any moron believe that autopilot on a car would be so completely different from autopilot on any other vehicle?
If we had always taken that advice, the wheel would never have been invented. Progress requires that the idiots and the lawyers get out of the way some times.
The vast majority of owners use the system properly. The solution to idiots like this is not to cripple the system and stop looking for improvements, it's to point out that they are idiots and that you don't condone their actions.
1) never in the history of transportation, in any mode, has autopilot even vaguely resembled autonomous. Autopilot has existed on boasts and airplanes for decades and does not attempt to avoid a collision in any way shape or form. Tesla's autopilot system is way ahead of anything else that bears the name autopilot. But only a complete and utter moron would believe that it can drive itself.
2) I have not seen such videos, but they wouldn't prove anything unless tesla claimed that this was A) a production vehicle and B) a recommended practice.
3) autopilot is something amazing. It's a better cruse control system than exists on any other production car in the world. That doesn't imply in any way that it does more than that. "Amazing" is a qualifier not a quantifier. It says how well something does a task not how much of a task it does. Tesla have never claimed it drives itself. Not a single time.
Have you driven it? I have. If the vast majority were using it inappropriately we'd be seeing hundreds of these stories.
Considering the vast majority are using autopilot as it was intended and advertised, it seems that "Joe Public" has the correct perception.
But in every group there will be the occasional idiot, and it appears we've found one here.
I would need to see context. Elon often talks about the future of transportation, I'm not sure that that quote was in relation to any current product.
As for "calling it auto-pilot"... I'm not sure how that's in any way confusing. Autopilot is generally an aeronautic term, however has also been used in nautical situations in the past. It refers to a system in many ways less advanced than that which Tesla has implemented. Neither the marine, nor aircraft versions of autopilot do ANY collision avoidance. So why would you expect the automotive one to drive by itself when the airplane and boat ones don't????
Tesla has NEVER claimed autonomous driving. Not a single time.
They specifically call it AutoPilot in reference to the aircraft systems which require pilots to maintain full control at all times, and which make zero attempt at all to avoid any form of collision.
Tesla has always been perfectly clear that this is a driver assist feature, akin to autopilot in planes, they've never claimed any form of autonomy here.
There's one person, and only one person, that was 100% responsible for this incident, and that's the idiot who drove in to the side of a truck while watching a DVD.
As I said before, I'm no Tesla fanboy, they do LOTS wrong, but this simply isn't one of those cases.
It's not the "default" behaviour, it's the idiotic and suicidal behaviour. So far, the "vast majority" of people have used it the way it's supposed to be used. But a couple of idiots have been stupid and tried to Darwin themselves.
Actively being engaged is still the default behaviour, and there's a very apparent need to do so if you've ever tried using it.
Show me where Tesla has ever claimed that Autopilot does all the driving? They've never claimed that.
If autopilot on planes allowed you to do away with pilots, why do all airliners still have 2 on board?
The fact is that the Tesla autopilot system does more than the system on a plane. Planes won't avoid other plants or mountains at all, they'll simply fly in a straight line.
So it's only misleading in that it does MORE than the name implies.
Unfortunately a lot of morons seem to think it means self driving, which it explicitly does not, nor has tesla ever claimed such capability.
Why would you expect the autopilot to detect this? Tesla has never advertised it as doing so, they've never advertised it as self driving, they've always said it's just driver assistance, and in fact they warn you of such every single time you enable the system.
Tesla does many things wrong, and I'm frequently pointing them out, but this wasn't one of them.
People said exactly the same thing about cruise control when it first came out too. But then it was shown that by taking away the routine throttle adjustments, and the discomfort of holding your leg in exactly the same position for hours on end, driving actually became safer.
Same thing here, I drive on autopilot daily, and by not having to to worry about the routine, I can focus my attention more fully on my environment to better anticipate potential problems ahead.
Unfortunately the world is full of absolute idiots and lawyers who will ruin it for those of us who use the system add it was intended, as it was advertised, and add the warning that you acknowledge every single time you enable the system tells you.
Netflix also doesn't have to compete against Apple who can easily undercut them by the exact amount they have to pay to Apple in the first place.
Probably because Apple isn't trying to compete with them.
So what you're saying is that they do not feel it adds value.
When you're having trouble making ends meet, you cut things that don't add value, you don't cut the things that make you money.
If it was worth it to the app creator, don't you think they'd pay up instead of getting lawyers involved?
Interestingly the summary also makes no mention whatsoever of any malware, only a tool that roots your device. That would be a good thing, not a bad thing.
Now obviously they're implying that the app also does something evil once it has root, but they rely should say so.
The way this is written is as if to imply that having any control over the hardware that you own is a horrible thing.
You're not very good at searching.
Glad you were lucky. Others have not been.
Wrong again!
There are many examples out there of exactly this. Duplicating cards using these scanners. It's been done many many times.
You shilling for the banks doesn't do anyone any favours.
The "bad guy" can, and has in the past, buy stuff with your card.
The bank WILL NOT reverse the charge, because they believe the same lies that you do that it's not possible to duplicate the cards, and therefore claim that the fraud must be on the part of the cardholder. This too has happened already, with the fraud victim actually being arrested for fraud because someone copied his card.
So are snaps more powerful, or faster, than what we had before?
If not, your analogy breaks down.