Yes a group of people got tired of apache stubbornly supporting only http and not SQL. They recognized that http isn't needed by anyone and so they forked it. Strangely, after all their hard work the code looked a lot more like MySQL than it did Apache, and perhaps it would have been easier to fork MySQL than it would have been to do Apache, but here we are.
Because Kodi has an infinitely better interface from the couch than any of the websites.
Even if a particular website's interface somehow caters to the 'from the couch' usage, an application like Kodi provides an infinitely better interface for changing between providers, when the content is provider based, as well as enforcing some semblence of consistency across the board (if you use amazon prime, netflix, youtube, and crunchyroll, each has their own precious snowflake interface for navigation and playback control).
I have no qualms about DRM for things like Netlix, where I'm explicitly paying to 'rent' and suffering the ill effects of content coming and going just enough to frustrate me.
I have serious qualms that any 'digital' download to 'own' is DRM encumbered and will break if the vendor goes away or I look at things funny.
I had such high hopes when digital music drm went the way of the dodo, but ebooks and videos are still infested.
Of course, I am dealing with DRM still with media based purchases, but at least it is fully offline and not subject to the fortunes and whims of whatever business I bought it from.
Now if the whole nation would do that, everyone would be rich and no one would be working.
(That sounds totally viable).
Also, evidently everyone in the world can pick aggressive investments and come out ahead, and not get wiped out by making what will become an incorrect investment choice.
For me of 15 years ago, it would have been impractical. If 'instant gratifcation' means 'able to eat at least one meal a day', I was guilty. Sometimes there just isn't fat to trim.
If I bitched about needing all my money that I earn *today* then I would be a totally impatient and self-absorbed guy. Then again if I can afford to engage in shenanigans to have money later than now, then I can also afford to have a bit more tax burden to pay for the sort of programs I needed 15 years ago to get by, and that many of my extended family need today.
See how change happened this time around in Presidential race?
People *once again* thought they were voting for change, and for the most part things are looking the same as any other president, except for a bit more racism? He put on a more thorough and longer show than Obama did that things were going to be different (to most, scary different, but still different) and now we are rapidly seeing his administration evolve to look a lot like most of his predecessors.
As it stands, practically speaking the election part of it all is nowadays to a large extent theatrics, except for extreme situations.
There are things that inarguably are going to work better in software and sensors (the systems can know at the same time 360 degrees and within inches of each corner, if appropriate equipped) and can manipulate hardware faster when correct decisions are made.
On the flipside, we have whether the systems fail to recognize something real or 'hallucinate' something fake and react poorly. If some completely unexpected situation comes up not in the training (while driving training may be more exhaustive for the system than for a human, the human driving training takes for granted a ton of not-strictly-driving but still relevant decisions).
Also we frame the debate between completely manual and completely autonomous generally being the only two points to compare. In reality, we already see some of the most valuable safety and convenience of autonomous driving working itself into market ready cars (adaptive cruise control, lane guidance, collision warning/auto braking) that takes a lot of the tedium out and uses computing systems for things they are naturally good at (paying unending attention to detail that would bore a human brain to death) and the human is providing the ability to intelligently take in some of the bigger picture and make decisions. It's not such a bad place, and that should be the comparison point for autonomous driving, rather than people driving around 10 year old cars.
It is a matter of degrees, but I find it hard to believe that a significant number of households currently owning three cars think they wouldn't need that third car if only they could rent a self-driving car. The reason being is they can rent such a car today, yet they still own a car, which they won't do unless they think it makes sense for them.
I don't say there is no market for rentals (obviously there is already), I just don't see self-driving long term tipping the scale in favor of renting more than it is today.
I know a lot of businesses will use *any* excuse to push renting/leasing because it's more lucrative for them. However the general market continues to go for ownership despite how hard the companies push against ownership.
Exactly this. Generally speaking, software developers no longer understand what they write. Whether it's a simple program to pop up a dialog window or a self-driving car, 99% of the time the developer has no idea how things are really working, they know how they set the initial parameters, and maybe can speak to a high level about the stuff under the hood, but really they have no more understanding of what they are doing than a typical driver understanding how the car moves when they press the gas pedal.
All existing data from ongoing self-driving car pilots,
All publicized existing data from pilots run by groups that would profit from a favorable result, and generally interpreted by those groups into a press release that is regurgitated by an ever less critical media. Skepticism is not such a bad thing to have when faced with neither research nor journalism with an objective, critical eye.
Problem is this is based on data that is hardly that rigorous scientifically, from parties that have a vested interest in a specific result.
On the data from autonomous driving: -Sometimes includes 'simulations' -Necessarily done only on cars less than a couple years old -Additionally, they have particularly rigorous maintenance -Has the benefit of all modern safety systems apart from the autonomous driving system itself. -Any time the autonomous system determines it might not be able to operate safely, it surrenders to the human -Only done in select areas. -Sometimes has a 'no true scotsman' tilt to it (e.g. 'autopilot' isn't an autonomous system when there's an incident, but sometimes it counts when it looks good)
This data is then generally compared with incident rates from cars that: -On overage, are an order of magnitude older -With frequently spotty maintenance -Many don't have anti lock breaks, stability and traction control, adaptive cruise control, collision warning, lane departure warning/avoidance -Operates under circumstances the autonomous system won't even try -Done everywhere -Contain willfully reckless drivers, who will be a source of incidents unless they are *forbidden* from driving, even if their cars *can* be autonomous.
My suspicion is the safest is the 'semi-autonomous', systems double checking the human and having a much wider view, but still with a human forced to pay attention will yield the best results. Note that systems that don't punish a user for neglecting to be attentive will give it a bad name (e.g. the Tesla incidents).
This is the thing that has had me scratching my head. People equate self-driving cars with 'always rent the car'. I don't understand why everyone things those two are necessarily tied together.
If anything, I would predict the opposite, between the lower maintenance of electric drivetrains and the experience of basically having a personal driver all the time, people would be more willing to own than rent.
Level of investment due to a critical mass of well resourced companies? The big question whether that investment due to fad will sustain long enough to get to the end or if the fad dies down before they get to market.
A large part of progress is not whether it is technically possible to do so, but whether the right set of people get interested in making it a reality at the right time.
(witness those who think wireless charging is a lifesaver)
I still think that conventional wireless charging is overrated, and a auto-mating direct electrical connection is underrated. Having a 'dock' sort of arrangement has always seemed fine by be and is easier to execute and is more efficient. Been so strange that hasn't been a more prevalent theme.
Gasoline and internal combustion engines are a pain in the ass, we are just way too used to them and people try to apply the same strategies to electric cars, even though better strategies are available that aren't popular today because it's just too impractical with gasoline.
*If* a slow charging reality comes around, it would most likely mean a change in workplaces and restaraunts and shopping, where electric charging is a perk or paid aspect of your spot rather than something you have to do just for the benefit of the car.
If I just plugged my car in at my real destination without having to make a stop *just* for the car, I would be ecstatic (gas stations are not exactly pleasant places to 'hang out' compared to wherever I *really* want to be). I hate my weekly trip to the gas station, and would similarly hate a weekly trip to a fast charging station, even if it were the same amount of time.
the lack of an instrument cluster and a single large touch screen instead.
The thing here is that a lot of companies did the same thing in the late 2000s, and then went back because of the massive complaints associated with trying to operate such systems while driving, where you want to navigate by touch rather than look.
Being aware is one thing, being *able* to do something is quite another. We won't know until they try. Some very well resourced companies have failed when it came to trying to figure out large scale manufacturing of even consumer electronics, especially not automotive manufacturing.
Really? If there's one thing that Tesla can claim, it's that they're different.
The main unique thing not done even by premium brands they've done is eschew hard buttons in favor of touch screen, and their competition did that years ago and went back to real buttons for common features when that turned out to be a fiasco for driving. They call their smart cruise control autopilot and sometimes kind of pretend it is a fully autonomous system, but really it competes with less outrageously aggressively marketed smart cruise control systems from the competition. People hold their service in high regard, but other similar low volume premium brands similarly extend that sort of service.
That's a better argument, that essentially Tesla is positioned to be more like GE or Honeywell than an automotive company. Then maybe the valuation isn't *as* crazy, since they are still well behind honeywell valuation, with less scale and proven, but more recognizable brand in the home market (though I still think there's a whole lot of uncertainty in play). But all these articles comparing the stock to Ford and GM don't seem to align with that sort of argument.
The challenge being that there can be no apples to apples comparison. It is not a given that a luxury brand could 'descend' into the general market and anticipate overwhelmingly better success than other markets. If Maserati released a $30k car, it may have no particular advantage over a Honda or similar.
Worse here is there is no evidence that Tesla really knows how to scale up to large volumes even if they do hit success. A lot of businesses have buckled under the weight of their own success because they never could figure out how to grow to a high volume business simply due to the logistical nightmares that come with it.
It's certainly a sufficiently long shot that *already* being more valuable than GM or Ford seems *way* premature.
I think the point is the R&D budget in this case comes from the investors rather than the customers. Which is the whole point of getting investors, to get money to work with before you can get it from customers. You are right in that the investors will revolt if obscene business results are not seen, and I see that as a highly likely outcome.
Yeah, that's the other thing, Tesla hasn't shown they can keep up with their current 50k/year volumes that well, and it is a massive undertaking to get to support volumes that would compete with the traditional car companies. Very capital intensive and very ongoing expensive undertaking, and their cars aren't *that* different than what their competitors have on offer already.
The thing that gets me is that already Tesla lags behind Nissan in electric cars sold cumulative *and* ongoing. It's volumes are in line with competing with Maserati, and somehow people don't give FCAU a huge bump because people like Maseratis.
If you want to say it's not about the cars, ok, maybe. I doubt the hyperloop will be a big win, but *maybe* they can be a trusted brand in solar power, which doesn't have household brand names of great strength yet. But at least in the cars (which is what most everyone is talking about), it is crazy over optimistic to say it's more than GM based on vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes a group of people got tired of apache stubbornly supporting only http and not SQL. They recognized that http isn't needed by anyone and so they forked it. Strangely, after all their hard work the code looked a lot more like MySQL than it did Apache, and perhaps it would have been easier to fork MySQL than it would have been to do Apache, but here we are.
Because Kodi has an infinitely better interface from the couch than any of the websites.
Even if a particular website's interface somehow caters to the 'from the couch' usage, an application like Kodi provides an infinitely better interface for changing between providers, when the content is provider based, as well as enforcing some semblence of consistency across the board (if you use amazon prime, netflix, youtube, and crunchyroll, each has their own precious snowflake interface for navigation and playback control).
I have no qualms about DRM for things like Netlix, where I'm explicitly paying to 'rent' and suffering the ill effects of content coming and going just enough to frustrate me.
I have serious qualms that any 'digital' download to 'own' is DRM encumbered and will break if the vendor goes away or I look at things funny.
I had such high hopes when digital music drm went the way of the dodo, but ebooks and videos are still infested.
Of course, I am dealing with DRM still with media based purchases, but at least it is fully offline and not subject to the fortunes and whims of whatever business I bought it from.
Now if the whole nation would do that, everyone would be rich and no one would be working.
(That sounds totally viable).
Also, evidently everyone in the world can pick aggressive investments and come out ahead, and not get wiped out by making what will become an incorrect investment choice.
For me of 15 years ago, it would have been impractical. If 'instant gratifcation' means 'able to eat at least one meal a day', I was guilty. Sometimes there just isn't fat to trim.
If I bitched about needing all my money that I earn *today* then I would be a totally impatient and self-absorbed guy. Then again if I can afford to engage in shenanigans to have money later than now, then I can also afford to have a bit more tax burden to pay for the sort of programs I needed 15 years ago to get by, and that many of my extended family need today.
See how change happened this time around in Presidential race?
People *once again* thought they were voting for change, and for the most part things are looking the same as any other president, except for a bit more racism? He put on a more thorough and longer show than Obama did that things were going to be different (to most, scary different, but still different) and now we are rapidly seeing his administration evolve to look a lot like most of his predecessors.
As it stands, practically speaking the election part of it all is nowadays to a large extent theatrics, except for extreme situations.
There are things that inarguably are going to work better in software and sensors (the systems can know at the same time 360 degrees and within inches of each corner, if appropriate equipped) and can manipulate hardware faster when correct decisions are made.
On the flipside, we have whether the systems fail to recognize something real or 'hallucinate' something fake and react poorly. If some completely unexpected situation comes up not in the training (while driving training may be more exhaustive for the system than for a human, the human driving training takes for granted a ton of not-strictly-driving but still relevant decisions).
Also we frame the debate between completely manual and completely autonomous generally being the only two points to compare. In reality, we already see some of the most valuable safety and convenience of autonomous driving working itself into market ready cars (adaptive cruise control, lane guidance, collision warning/auto braking) that takes a lot of the tedium out and uses computing systems for things they are naturally good at (paying unending attention to detail that would bore a human brain to death) and the human is providing the ability to intelligently take in some of the bigger picture and make decisions. It's not such a bad place, and that should be the comparison point for autonomous driving, rather than people driving around 10 year old cars.
It is a matter of degrees, but I find it hard to believe that a significant number of households currently owning three cars think they wouldn't need that third car if only they could rent a self-driving car. The reason being is they can rent such a car today, yet they still own a car, which they won't do unless they think it makes sense for them.
I don't say there is no market for rentals (obviously there is already), I just don't see self-driving long term tipping the scale in favor of renting more than it is today.
I know a lot of businesses will use *any* excuse to push renting/leasing because it's more lucrative for them. However the general market continues to go for ownership despite how hard the companies push against ownership.
Exactly this. Generally speaking, software developers no longer understand what they write. Whether it's a simple program to pop up a dialog window or a self-driving car, 99% of the time the developer has no idea how things are really working, they know how they set the initial parameters, and maybe can speak to a high level about the stuff under the hood, but really they have no more understanding of what they are doing than a typical driver understanding how the car moves when they press the gas pedal.
All existing data from ongoing self-driving car pilots,
All publicized existing data from pilots run by groups that would profit from a favorable result, and generally interpreted by those groups into a press release that is regurgitated by an ever less critical media. Skepticism is not such a bad thing to have when faced with neither research nor journalism with an objective, critical eye.
are already better drivers than humans
Problem is this is based on data that is hardly that rigorous scientifically, from parties that have a vested interest in a specific result.
On the data from autonomous driving:
-Sometimes includes 'simulations'
-Necessarily done only on cars less than a couple years old
-Additionally, they have particularly rigorous maintenance
-Has the benefit of all modern safety systems apart from the autonomous driving system itself.
-Any time the autonomous system determines it might not be able to operate safely, it surrenders to the human
-Only done in select areas.
-Sometimes has a 'no true scotsman' tilt to it (e.g. 'autopilot' isn't an autonomous system when there's an incident, but sometimes it counts when it looks good)
This data is then generally compared with incident rates from cars that:
-On overage, are an order of magnitude older
-With frequently spotty maintenance
-Many don't have anti lock breaks, stability and traction control, adaptive cruise control, collision warning, lane departure warning/avoidance
-Operates under circumstances the autonomous system won't even try
-Done everywhere
-Contain willfully reckless drivers, who will be a source of incidents unless they are *forbidden* from driving, even if their cars *can* be autonomous.
My suspicion is the safest is the 'semi-autonomous', systems double checking the human and having a much wider view, but still with a human forced to pay attention will yield the best results. Note that systems that don't punish a user for neglecting to be attentive will give it a bad name (e.g. the Tesla incidents).
This is the thing that has had me scratching my head. People equate self-driving cars with 'always rent the car'. I don't understand why everyone things those two are necessarily tied together.
If anything, I would predict the opposite, between the lower maintenance of electric drivetrains and the experience of basically having a personal driver all the time, people would be more willing to own than rent.
Level of investment due to a critical mass of well resourced companies? The big question whether that investment due to fad will sustain long enough to get to the end or if the fad dies down before they get to market.
A large part of progress is not whether it is technically possible to do so, but whether the right set of people get interested in making it a reality at the right time.
(witness those who think wireless charging is a lifesaver)
I still think that conventional wireless charging is overrated, and a auto-mating direct electrical connection is underrated. Having a 'dock' sort of arrangement has always seemed fine by be and is easier to execute and is more efficient. Been so strange that hasn't been a more prevalent theme.
Gasoline and internal combustion engines are a pain in the ass, we are just way too used to them and people try to apply the same strategies to electric cars, even though better strategies are available that aren't popular today because it's just too impractical with gasoline.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the original, no idea where it came from, around 2000 would fit the height of the overuse of XML age.
Heh, I probably should change my sig one of these days. I don't feel like there's so much asinine use of XML as there used to be.
*If* a slow charging reality comes around, it would most likely mean a change in workplaces and restaraunts and shopping, where electric charging is a perk or paid aspect of your spot rather than something you have to do just for the benefit of the car.
If I just plugged my car in at my real destination without having to make a stop *just* for the car, I would be ecstatic (gas stations are not exactly pleasant places to 'hang out' compared to wherever I *really* want to be). I hate my weekly trip to the gas station, and would similarly hate a weekly trip to a fast charging station, even if it were the same amount of time.
I don't feel like paying to follow a link, I was using wikipedia. Whichever statistic is right, Tesla is nowhere near the same sort of thing.
the lack of an instrument cluster and a single large touch screen instead.
The thing here is that a lot of companies did the same thing in the late 2000s, and then went back because of the massive complaints associated with trying to operate such systems while driving, where you want to navigate by touch rather than look.
But they do seem to be aware of this.
Being aware is one thing, being *able* to do something is quite another. We won't know until they try. Some very well resourced companies have failed when it came to trying to figure out large scale manufacturing of even consumer electronics, especially not automotive manufacturing.
Really? If there's one thing that Tesla can claim, it's that they're different.
The main unique thing not done even by premium brands they've done is eschew hard buttons in favor of touch screen, and their competition did that years ago and went back to real buttons for common features when that turned out to be a fiasco for driving. They call their smart cruise control autopilot and sometimes kind of pretend it is a fully autonomous system, but really it competes with less outrageously aggressively marketed smart cruise control systems from the competition. People hold their service in high regard, but other similar low volume premium brands similarly extend that sort of service.
That's a better argument, that essentially Tesla is positioned to be more like GE or Honeywell than an automotive company. Then maybe the valuation isn't *as* crazy, since they are still well behind honeywell valuation, with less scale and proven, but more recognizable brand in the home market (though I still think there's a whole lot of uncertainty in play). But all these articles comparing the stock to Ford and GM don't seem to align with that sort of argument.
The challenge being that there can be no apples to apples comparison. It is not a given that a luxury brand could 'descend' into the general market and anticipate overwhelmingly better success than other markets. If Maserati released a $30k car, it may have no particular advantage over a Honda or similar.
Worse here is there is no evidence that Tesla really knows how to scale up to large volumes even if they do hit success. A lot of businesses have buckled under the weight of their own success because they never could figure out how to grow to a high volume business simply due to the logistical nightmares that come with it.
It's certainly a sufficiently long shot that *already* being more valuable than GM or Ford seems *way* premature.
I think the point is the R&D budget in this case comes from the investors rather than the customers. Which is the whole point of getting investors, to get money to work with before you can get it from customers. You are right in that the investors will revolt if obscene business results are not seen, and I see that as a highly likely outcome.
Yeah, that's the other thing, Tesla hasn't shown they can keep up with their current 50k/year volumes that well, and it is a massive undertaking to get to support volumes that would compete with the traditional car companies. Very capital intensive and very ongoing expensive undertaking, and their cars aren't *that* different than what their competitors have on offer already.
The thing that gets me is that already Tesla lags behind Nissan in electric cars sold cumulative *and* ongoing. It's volumes are in line with competing with Maserati, and somehow people don't give FCAU a huge bump because people like Maseratis.
If you want to say it's not about the cars, ok, maybe. I doubt the hyperloop will be a big win, but *maybe* they can be a trusted brand in solar power, which doesn't have household brand names of great strength yet. But at least in the cars (which is what most everyone is talking about), it is crazy over optimistic to say it's more than GM based on vehicles.