Huh. Automated vehicles are likely to make things much, much safer in the long run. Fully automated vehicles, that is. This thing sounds more like a driver assist feature, and not something you want to trust when your attention is elsewhere; perhaps only when driving in the slow lane.
By the way, cabs are too expensive for everyday use, and public transport only takes me from a place I am not to a place I do not wish to go. I'd love to have a fully automatic vehicle so I can take a nap or read while it takes me to work. In fact, why even own a car if you could have a cheap rental or pool car rock up to your house by itself on the mornings you need it?
What they need to include is a "software skeleton", a framework with libraries for motor control, balancing, machine vision and sensor feedback. The basics of those already exist, and not having to code these or cobble them together from whatever FOSS libraries are floating around would save experimenters a vast amount of time spent on stuff that has been more or less solved.
Meh. Both Google and Apple are in a good position to improve standards, products and especially the usability of software related to Smart Homes. But both companies are a day late and a dollar short. They are still trying to get remote control right, which is merely the first step towards a smart home, and even in that space their efforts are anything but impressive. The real challenge is to come up with a good and simple to use control center, going from remote control to true home automation. Both companies thus far appear to have the wrong vision on that, if they have one at all (IFTTT, seriously...). There are already a lot of players in this space, and more than one newcomer currently gathering funds on Kickstarter.
Personally I tend to agree with the vision statement of the OpenHAB project. They aim to be a "hub of hubs", with the idea that there's no way in hell that anyone will come up with a hub or even a standard to serve everyone's needs, and keep up with all imaginable devices, of all brands, in all countries. So you'd use several hubs as a communications layer, tie them together with OpenHAB, and put the intelligence there.
Better to not install it in the first place. The article mentions targeted attacks: "Once the sample is ready, the attacker delivers it to the mobile device of the victim. Some of the known infection vectors include spearphishing via social engineering – often coupled with exploits, including zero-days; and local infections via USB cables while synchronizing mobile devices". Sounds like stuff you can avoid with some care. They also mention that the trojan will not work on un-jailbroken iOS devices.
"Unlimited upward potential", right... There's only so much advertising budget to go around; companies will shift some of it from traditional media to social / online ads. The actual upward potential comes from serving the long tail: small firms that cannot afford to pay traditional media ads, or larger firms that are willing to spend more on advertising if it turns out to be more effective. Or an advertisment arms race. But even that only goes so far.
As the joke goes: Merkel was mad about her phone being tapped, then our prime minister Rutte (in NL) got mad about his phone not being tapped, as if he's not important enough...
What I find interesting is that she's mad about her phone being tapped (and others are mad about it too, I heard they're launching an official investigation now). So tapping phones of all other Germans, from fry cook to captain of industry, apparently doesn't merit any outrage. I'd argue that it's the other way around: if there's any phone that the US has any business listening in on, it's hers.
That's a fair point. However, to what extent do these issues exist because the iOS simulator is a simulator rather than an emulator? An emulator might have broken OpenGL support, same as the simulator. And for performance-related stuff I'd prefer a real device over either.
By the way, the author of that article does not IMHO make a strong point for simulators. He seems to have a lot of problems with the Android development environment, some related to performance and reliability but many related to usability, and the reason the emulator has these problems is not the fact that it's an emulator. An equally crappy simulator isn't going to solve those problems.
Virtually nothing? I'd say that the simulator covers about 95% of my testing and diagnosis needs. I only have to resort to running on a physical device when I have to test stuff related to the on-board sensors, camera, or push notifications. So far I've found 1 case where the simulator did not behave as expected. If it works on the simulator, chances are it'll work on the device. If it doesn't work on the simulator, in almost all cases you will be able to use the simulator to diagnose and fix the issue. I should note that I do not do game development; I've no experience in writing apps with high performance 2d/3d graphics.
With that said, I always test release candidates on various types of real devices.
As far as I can tell, MS does not keep the patents secret (they can't), they just tell others: "We have over a million patents, and we think you are violating a least one of them. We're not saying which one, so that you cannot look it up and decide whether to pay up, work around it, or fight us in court. We'd rather that you do not take the risk of a lengthy court battle that ends in your product being taken of the market; much better for the both of us if you just pony up what we ask, now".
This amounts to legal blackmail. Surprisingly there's no law against this sort of thing.
I want... similar drool inducing screen specs to make it into the bigger screens, where ultra-high resolutions actualy make sense. The choice in TVs and monitors with resolutions that exceed HD is still decidedly poor. On tablets, a high resolution helps especially when reading for longer periods of time, but I couldn't care less about black levels or color reproduction. Again, such features are more important for bigger screens.
I'm surprised such changes can be made from the front panel of the machine. I'd say that any administrative mode should only be accessible by a switch or keypad inside the machine's strongbox.
Is that the case? Over here in NL, you have the right to film the police, however you do not have the right to publish that material. You also do not have the right to interfere with police business, and you do have to follow orders related to public safety. And if your camera is actually inciting violent behaviour in others, the cops can rightfully order you to move on. It's not always a 100% clear cut case, and both the filmer and the police have to make judgment calls. And the police frequently make the wrong one... in which case, you can NOT be convicted for not following orders. It's the same in the US, IIRC.
And it's the same for flight attendants. You are obliged to follow orders related to safety: e.g. to get back in your seat and buckle up. You are however not to follow the purser's order to strip and dance naked in the aisle.
Funny, I have the same urge when using an Android phone. Truth is: both take some getting used to after switching. It appears that casual (non techy) users find the iPhone slightly easier to get to grips with, while techy users prefer the flexibility of the Android (which for casual users may actually be a downside). But that's just anecdotal, and it's not that big a differentiator in any case; the main decision criteria appear to be price and appearance (of the device, not the OS).
How were the seller's hands tied exactly? Most app developers just click every country in the app store when it comes to selling it. The only reason I can think of for a developer not to sell an app in a certain country is that he is not allowed to sell it there, because of content which is illegal in that country, or because the software uses libraries with a license that restricts sales in certain countries. In both cases it is appropriate not to sell the app there, and no fault of the "bastards in the middle"
IIRC, the problem with DDT was that is was used indiscriminately and in large quantities, rather than locally, in small quantities, and only use it if the situation warrants it. The dangers of using DDT in that manner may well have warranted the outright ban, but it's been proven since that DDT can certainly be used responsibly, especially against the spread of malaria.
It's similar to the practice of putting antibiotics in cattle feed to prevent / treat diseases or promote growth. Feed used to be laden with the stuff, which gave rise to all manner of resistant strains of diseases. Many countries have now regulated such use of antibiotics and often only allow it when there is an actual outbreak to be treated, but antibiotics haven't been banned outright as far as I know.
VR could be great for movies with a lot of nice scenery, to increase immersion. Even if you create the movie in such a way that all the action happens in front of the viewer (perhaps with cues prompting the viewer to look forward when something happens), while still allowing him to look everywhere else and take in the scenery. For movies where most scenery is computer-generated, it shouldn't even be too expensive to produce such a VR version of the movie along with the regular release.
It does suck that FB bought OR. In principle I have nothing against buying a VR headset from them, same as buying a mouse from "evil" Microsoft, as long as it's just hardware. Problem is: FB, unlike MS, is a company founded on a business model of gathering and whoring out our personal data, and serving us ads. Not a big fan of that. FB may be trying to diversify their business a bit with projects like the OR, which is good, but they may also see it as something to augment their existing business model. In general I'm not happy to see these exiting new startups being snapped up by the new molochs: FB buying OR, Google buying Nest, etc.
There are a number of other groups working on VR headsets, but as far as I can tell they range from DIY efforts to prototypes that are still a long way from appearing on shelves in shops. Even Valve seems to be struggling, with their VR team bleeding talent to OR's team. With that said, I do expect some consumer and computer electronics manufacturers to jump on the bandwagon once OR proves that there is a viable market for VR headsets.
It might have saved him, if the drunk driver would have spotted him earlier because of it. Besides, good illumination is not about making you safe from any and all accidents, it's about vastly improving your odds in situations that can potentially turn into an accident.
It was a bit hard to see in the video... and I think it needs to be a little bit brighter in any case, even in daylight a good bike light is clearly visible.
Note to cyclists: as a motorist who often drives down poorly lit country roads with lots of bicycle and car traffic, I see many cyclists with poor illumination, namely those poxy blinky LED lights. The blinking red ones are hard to see and the blinky front ones usually are *way* short on power, and hard to see during dusk or dawn. Please get one that doesn't blink and puts out a good amount of light. I'd hate to damage my car again... (and in NL, the motorist pretty much always pays)
Same things happens around airports here. Lots of open land free of humans, and patrols around the perimeter to ensure humans stay away. Of course the surroundings of a runway won't be favourable to all kinds of wildlife, but in general you'll see a lot of flora and fauna doing well there.
Ah yes, blame "the West". Of course the East has been a bastion of wisdom, equality and selfless generosity for a long time now. The South did not fare so well, being too busy being sold off by the West into slavery, which the West invented of course.
Or maybe selfishness is just human nature and a thing of all times.
Slashdot Mirror
The weight idea might have some merit: overeat, and you'll be walking home (your increased weight fooling the car into thinking you are someone else).
Something like that, yes. Awesome project, thanks for that link.
Huh. Automated vehicles are likely to make things much, much safer in the long run. Fully automated vehicles, that is. This thing sounds more like a driver assist feature, and not something you want to trust when your attention is elsewhere; perhaps only when driving in the slow lane.
By the way, cabs are too expensive for everyday use, and public transport only takes me from a place I am not to a place I do not wish to go. I'd love to have a fully automatic vehicle so I can take a nap or read while it takes me to work. In fact, why even own a car if you could have a cheap rental or pool car rock up to your house by itself on the mornings you need it?
What they need to include is a "software skeleton", a framework with libraries for motor control, balancing, machine vision and sensor feedback. The basics of those already exist, and not having to code these or cobble them together from whatever FOSS libraries are floating around would save experimenters a vast amount of time spent on stuff that has been more or less solved.
Meh. Both Google and Apple are in a good position to improve standards, products and especially the usability of software related to Smart Homes. But both companies are a day late and a dollar short. They are still trying to get remote control right, which is merely the first step towards a smart home, and even in that space their efforts are anything but impressive. The real challenge is to come up with a good and simple to use control center, going from remote control to true home automation. Both companies thus far appear to have the wrong vision on that, if they have one at all (IFTTT, seriously...). There are already a lot of players in this space, and more than one newcomer currently gathering funds on Kickstarter.
Personally I tend to agree with the vision statement of the OpenHAB project. They aim to be a "hub of hubs", with the idea that there's no way in hell that anyone will come up with a hub or even a standard to serve everyone's needs, and keep up with all imaginable devices, of all brands, in all countries. So you'd use several hubs as a communications layer, tie them together with OpenHAB, and put the intelligence there.
"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old when we stop playing"
Better to not install it in the first place. The article mentions targeted attacks: "Once the sample is ready, the attacker delivers it to the mobile device of the victim. Some of the known infection vectors include spearphishing via social engineering – often coupled with exploits, including zero-days; and local infections via USB cables while synchronizing mobile devices". Sounds like stuff you can avoid with some care. They also mention that the trojan will not work on un-jailbroken iOS devices.
"Unlimited upward potential", right... There's only so much advertising budget to go around; companies will shift some of it from traditional media to social / online ads. The actual upward potential comes from serving the long tail: small firms that cannot afford to pay traditional media ads, or larger firms that are willing to spend more on advertising if it turns out to be more effective. Or an advertisment arms race. But even that only goes so far.
As the joke goes: Merkel was mad about her phone being tapped, then our prime minister Rutte (in NL) got mad about his phone not being tapped, as if he's not important enough...
What I find interesting is that she's mad about her phone being tapped (and others are mad about it too, I heard they're launching an official investigation now). So tapping phones of all other Germans, from fry cook to captain of industry, apparently doesn't merit any outrage. I'd argue that it's the other way around: if there's any phone that the US has any business listening in on, it's hers.
That's a fair point. However, to what extent do these issues exist because the iOS simulator is a simulator rather than an emulator? An emulator might have broken OpenGL support, same as the simulator. And for performance-related stuff I'd prefer a real device over either.
By the way, the author of that article does not IMHO make a strong point for simulators. He seems to have a lot of problems with the Android development environment, some related to performance and reliability but many related to usability, and the reason the emulator has these problems is not the fact that it's an emulator. An equally crappy simulator isn't going to solve those problems.
Virtually nothing? I'd say that the simulator covers about 95% of my testing and diagnosis needs. I only have to resort to running on a physical device when I have to test stuff related to the on-board sensors, camera, or push notifications. So far I've found 1 case where the simulator did not behave as expected. If it works on the simulator, chances are it'll work on the device. If it doesn't work on the simulator, in almost all cases you will be able to use the simulator to diagnose and fix the issue. I should note that I do not do game development; I've no experience in writing apps with high performance 2d/3d graphics.
With that said, I always test release candidates on various types of real devices.
As far as I can tell, MS does not keep the patents secret (they can't), they just tell others: "We have over a million patents, and we think you are violating a least one of them. We're not saying which one, so that you cannot look it up and decide whether to pay up, work around it, or fight us in court. We'd rather that you do not take the risk of a lengthy court battle that ends in your product being taken of the market; much better for the both of us if you just pony up what we ask, now".
This amounts to legal blackmail. Surprisingly there's no law against this sort of thing.
I want... similar drool inducing screen specs to make it into the bigger screens, where ultra-high resolutions actualy make sense. The choice in TVs and monitors with resolutions that exceed HD is still decidedly poor. On tablets, a high resolution helps especially when reading for longer periods of time, but I couldn't care less about black levels or color reproduction. Again, such features are more important for bigger screens.
I'm surprised such changes can be made from the front panel of the machine. I'd say that any administrative mode should only be accessible by a switch or keypad inside the machine's strongbox.
Overinformative I would say.
Is that the case? Over here in NL, you have the right to film the police, however you do not have the right to publish that material. You also do not have the right to interfere with police business, and you do have to follow orders related to public safety. And if your camera is actually inciting violent behaviour in others, the cops can rightfully order you to move on. It's not always a 100% clear cut case, and both the filmer and the police have to make judgment calls. And the police frequently make the wrong one... in which case, you can NOT be convicted for not following orders. It's the same in the US, IIRC.
And it's the same for flight attendants. You are obliged to follow orders related to safety: e.g. to get back in your seat and buckle up. You are however not to follow the purser's order to strip and dance naked in the aisle.
Funny, I have the same urge when using an Android phone. Truth is: both take some getting used to after switching. It appears that casual (non techy) users find the iPhone slightly easier to get to grips with, while techy users prefer the flexibility of the Android (which for casual users may actually be a downside). But that's just anecdotal, and it's not that big a differentiator in any case; the main decision criteria appear to be price and appearance (of the device, not the OS).
How were the seller's hands tied exactly? Most app developers just click every country in the app store when it comes to selling it. The only reason I can think of for a developer not to sell an app in a certain country is that he is not allowed to sell it there, because of content which is illegal in that country, or because the software uses libraries with a license that restricts sales in certain countries. In both cases it is appropriate not to sell the app there, and no fault of the "bastards in the middle"
IIRC, the problem with DDT was that is was used indiscriminately and in large quantities, rather than locally, in small quantities, and only use it if the situation warrants it. The dangers of using DDT in that manner may well have warranted the outright ban, but it's been proven since that DDT can certainly be used responsibly, especially against the spread of malaria.
It's similar to the practice of putting antibiotics in cattle feed to prevent / treat diseases or promote growth. Feed used to be laden with the stuff, which gave rise to all manner of resistant strains of diseases. Many countries have now regulated such use of antibiotics and often only allow it when there is an actual outbreak to be treated, but antibiotics haven't been banned outright as far as I know.
VR could be great for movies with a lot of nice scenery, to increase immersion. Even if you create the movie in such a way that all the action happens in front of the viewer (perhaps with cues prompting the viewer to look forward when something happens), while still allowing him to look everywhere else and take in the scenery. For movies where most scenery is computer-generated, it shouldn't even be too expensive to produce such a VR version of the movie along with the regular release.
It does suck that FB bought OR. In principle I have nothing against buying a VR headset from them, same as buying a mouse from "evil" Microsoft, as long as it's just hardware. Problem is: FB, unlike MS, is a company founded on a business model of gathering and whoring out our personal data, and serving us ads. Not a big fan of that. FB may be trying to diversify their business a bit with projects like the OR, which is good, but they may also see it as something to augment their existing business model. In general I'm not happy to see these exiting new startups being snapped up by the new molochs: FB buying OR, Google buying Nest, etc.
There are a number of other groups working on VR headsets, but as far as I can tell they range from DIY efforts to prototypes that are still a long way from appearing on shelves in shops. Even Valve seems to be struggling, with their VR team bleeding talent to OR's team. With that said, I do expect some consumer and computer electronics manufacturers to jump on the bandwagon once OR proves that there is a viable market for VR headsets.
It might have saved him, if the drunk driver would have spotted him earlier because of it. Besides, good illumination is not about making you safe from any and all accidents, it's about vastly improving your odds in situations that can potentially turn into an accident.
It was a bit hard to see in the video... and I think it needs to be a little bit brighter in any case, even in daylight a good bike light is clearly visible.
Note to cyclists: as a motorist who often drives down poorly lit country roads with lots of bicycle and car traffic, I see many cyclists with poor illumination, namely those poxy blinky LED lights. The blinking red ones are hard to see and the blinky front ones usually are *way* short on power, and hard to see during dusk or dawn. Please get one that doesn't blink and puts out a good amount of light. I'd hate to damage my car again... (and in NL, the motorist pretty much always pays)
Same things happens around airports here. Lots of open land free of humans, and patrols around the perimeter to ensure humans stay away. Of course the surroundings of a runway won't be favourable to all kinds of wildlife, but in general you'll see a lot of flora and fauna doing well there.
Ah yes, blame "the West". Of course the East has been a bastion of wisdom, equality and selfless generosity for a long time now. The South did not fare so well, being too busy being sold off by the West into slavery, which the West invented of course.
Or maybe selfishness is just human nature and a thing of all times.