I think that this is the least likely to be related to a drive by wire and will probably come down to driver error. For whatever reason people make this mistake all the time - they jam the wrong pedal, make the wrong drive mode selection, etc.
Pedal errors do happen, but this particular kind is a rare bird indeed according to this study:
Before leaving the serious error category, it should be mentioned that there were only two instances in which the subject depressed the accelerator instead of the brake. In both cases the subject recognized the error immediately and made a correction. There were no instances, in other words, in which the subject persisted in mistaking the accelerator for the brake.
And in this particular situation, the driver would have had to keep that pedal jammed for a long time and through lots of chaos. Look at the setup where the accident happened. The car had to first jump the curb, which takes a lot of force and gives the driver plenty of feedback that something is very wrong, and then still managed to run across the entire sidewalk area and hit the building with enough force to embed itself almost fully through the wall.
Given all that and the fact that we're talking about a car that has full control of its faculties and regularly makes bad "decisions" about how to use them, Occam says it most likely wasn't the driver.
Over time I've had pretty good luck with Seagate drives, and if you look at the data it seems some models are more stable than others...
Yeah, I outfitted a RAID array with the infamous ST3000DM001 several years ago and had to replace three or four of them during the two-year warranty period (as I recall, one of the warranty replacements itself crapped out fairly quickly). After the warranties ran out, I started replacing failures with WD and HGST and things have stabilized. Had I originally sprung for 4TB Seagates I probably would have been fine in comparison.
Why? The numbers by Tesla look pretty much as expected.
The past-performance numbers indeed were in range of expectations -- a mere $1B of cash burned for the quarter. But of course Tesla's viability depends on changing that trajectory quickly, and Elon's general refusal to answer questions about today's fundamentals and incessant focus on the Next Big Thing coming down the road Real Soon Now strongly suggest that's not happening.
I'm not sure at this point if you're just trolling or truly can't comprehend that the issue is not the bulb but the nature of the current applied to it.
LEDs powered by a properly rectified and smoothed DC source don't flicker.
LEDs powered by a raw rectifier (sometimes just half-wave, no less), or one with an insufficiently sized smoothing capacitor, do flicker. Often badly.
I pointed this out in my very first post.
Go read some basic articles on AC-DC conversion. Maybe even slip the term "LED" in there and see what you get.
I'm not sure what your issue is, but it's pretty severe. I'd recommend therapy. You're on the internet . . . slinging insults
The good news for you is that projection is treatable.
If Nicola's design patents cover these items they are covering design elements that have been in use for decades on all the other trucks out there and will clearly be invalid. If they cover the unique design elements that make their design different than every other truck on the road out there I see little similarity between Nicola and Tesla.
No need to speculate -- the patents and the features they allegedly cover are all described in detail in the complaint I linked to above. Would you put, for example, the wraparound windshield in the "have been in use for decades on all the other trucks out there" bucket, or the "unique design element that make their design different than every other truck on the road out there" bucket?
Again, your only response is to the words you put in my mouth. To the extent anything I said adds up to an "assertion," it's that this technology has been crammed down our throats so quickly and so comprehensively that we don't know the extent to which that's going to cause problems, and if we have the misfortune of not finding out for another 20-30 years that they actually cause severe problems across a healthy slice of the population, that's a whole generation of toothpaste that's not going back in the tube.
In no other circumstance of even close to this magnitude in this day and age has something like this been allowed or even contemplated without the proponents of the new technology being required to make a sufficient showing that it would not have adverse side effects before being rolled out on a widespread scale. That was shamelessly bypassed in this circumstance, because green.
Now, if you'd like to try to cogently discuss anything I actually said, I'm happy to do that. Barring that, I'm done putting the rattle back on the highchair.
According to Nikola, Tesla's truck is an impossible scam that will never work. So why bother suing a product that supposedly will never come to market?
For one thing, because Tesla's big PR splash about its truck can harm Nikola's sales of its truck even if Tesla's truck never actually comes to market.
Apparently enough ways that Nikola was able to get design patents on its particular one. In particular, I don't recall seeing anything like Nikola's wraparound windshield out in the wild.
The term "patent troll" typically describes a patentholder who is not actually practicing the patent but simply trying to monetize it.
Nikola has been actively developing its electric and hydrogen powered semi trucks for several years now and is targeting its first commercial sales next year. The complaint alleges that Tesla first tried to poach Nikola's chief design engineer, and then simply copied Nikola's patented design.
That doesn't strike me as being even close to a typical "patent troll" scenario.
You must be exhausted after so soundly demolishing that straw man. Here's exactly what I said:
Point a high-speed camera at one sometime and wonder to yourself what sort of biological and ecological effects will come to light a few decades down the road after widespread adoption.
If your position is that there's nothing to worry about because the earliest studies about physiological effects of an upstart lighting technology that has now largely displaced incandescent lighting (a sea change forced on society over a remarkably short period of time and with precious little concern for the potential side effects of doing so) didn't conclusively find any, weren't structured to your satisfaction, or whatever else you feel like picking at, let's just say we've all seen that movie before. Many times.
New LED light bulbs fit into my old fixtures just fine. They're all screw-in. The price has gone way down since the first days of LED bulbs, and they last a lot long than my old incandescent bulbs used to.
Prices have gone down, no doubt, but the cheaper ones in particular tend to flicker like the blazes due to sloppy rectification. Point a high-speed camera at one sometime and wonder to yourself what sort of biological and ecological effects will come to light a few decades down the road after widespread adoption.
Gamevice filed a second suit in California on March 29 of this year alleging infringement of two patents different than the one they asserted in the 2017 case. They then filed the ITC complaint a day later based on the same two patents.
That's a common play for big competitors. As the summary says, the ITC can issue an exclusion order so the products physically can't enter the U.S. anymore. That's an extreme remedy that became a lot harder to get in a federal court around a decade ago, so the ITC has become a lot more popular forum. But you can't get money damages in the ITC, so patentholders often file parallel suits in both forums. The federal court case will be stayed (put on hold) while the ITC investigates, and then after the stay is lifted Gamevice can litigate in federal court for money damages.
For competitive purposes, a monopolist may use forced buying, or "tie-in" sales, to gain sales in other markets where it is not dominant and to make it more difficult for rivals in those markets to obtain sales. This may limit consumer choice for buyers wanting to purchase one ("tying") product by forcing them to also buy a second ("tied") product as well. Typically, the "tied" product may be a less desirable one that the buyer might not purchase unless required to do so, or may prefer to get from a different seller. If the seller offering the tied products has sufficient market power in the "tying" product, these arrangements can violate the antitrust laws.
If you're free to buy the products separately, by definition they're not "tied." From the Supreme Court of the United States:
For our purposes a tying arrangement may be defined as an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier.[4]
[4] Of course where the buyer is free to take either product by itself there is no tying problem even though the seller may also offer the two items as a unit at a single price.
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 US 1, 6 (1958) (emphasis mine).
What this means is that it may cost Comcast more if you stream from Youtube than their proprietary services
Um, yeah. And that's why they structure their service offerings to effectively pass that extra cost along to customers that use more external bandwidth. Which was OP's point in a nutshell.
Comcast's network sends the "regular TV" (not that there's actually such a thing anymore) over the same network as the rest of the data, so yes, they will be using roughly the same amount of bandwidth in fact as someone saturating the pipe with HD youtube videos or what have you.
As is often the case in this sort of discussion, you're conflating LAN bandwidth with WAN bandwidth. One costs a tiny bit more than the other. I won't kill the suspense as to which is which.
Also, the thought that you're really too dumb to see this is very depressing for me
Not to mention that this is potentially a violation of anti trust bundling [ftc.gov] laws.
Not if they separately offer the faster Internet service for sale. As your link explains, the only way you can have illegal tying is if the bundle is the only way you can buy the product you want. Otherwise it's not "tied" by definition.
I have to say this is the first time I've ever anyone suggest that Net Neutrality would have forced an ISP to sell the same size pipe to all customers. Is your theory that people who want more bandwidth shouldn't be able to buy it, or that people who don't need bandwidth should be forced to pay for it?
True point, but as it turns out orthogonal to the study -- the summary is pretty misleading even for around here. The study was about the presence of plastics in the lakes, and that some of the plastics contain high levels of heavy metals. They didn't find heavy metals in the water itself, and specifically punt on whether it's even possible for the heavy metals to leach from the plastics:
The migratability of hazardous elements from the polymeric matrix is likely to determine their environmental impacts and is recommended as a future area of research.
You probably don't realize we all do that. Not exclusively from the past, but it is important. When I drive to work in freezing temperatures, I have a past knowledge making it safer. I know if it rained/snowed/sleeted, I smell see the affects of water to know where it may flood or freeze, I see it on the wipers, I know what roads are high traffic and were salted, and had high traffic to either maintain a clear surface (or were more likely to turn snow into ice, and to avoid.) I know to look out for road sections that are shaded from sun, or bridges.
Similar with looking at tracks of other cars, and have to trust the cars around me, looking way ahead for brake lights over hills...
I get all that, but every single one of those examples involves your immediate senses in combination with your general knowledge of your surroundings, and you make your operational decisions based on the least common denominator of the two. In no circumstance are you squeezing your eyes shut to what you're actually seeing and feeling and instead guessing at your environmental conditions based on some weather/traffic report you heard on the radio 5 minutes ago. And that's ultimately what OP was proposing -- reliance on stale environmental data in an effort to reduce sensor costs.
If a car system assumes the worst, and thus doesn't get help from off car data, they will be driving 20 mph on all paved roads in freezing temperatures.
Good. Hazardous driving conditions dramatically amplify the cost of mistakes. If that's all the faster they can safely go based on what they're able to sense of the real world around them, it'll be even clearer they're not ready for prime time.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that this is the least likely to be related to a drive by wire and will probably come down to driver error. For whatever reason people make this mistake all the time - they jam the wrong pedal, make the wrong drive mode selection, etc.
Pedal errors do happen, but this particular kind is a rare bird indeed according to this study:
Before leaving the serious error category, it should be mentioned that there were only two instances in which the subject depressed the accelerator instead of the brake. In both cases the subject recognized the error immediately and made a correction. There were no instances, in other words, in which the subject persisted in mistaking the accelerator for the brake.
And in this particular situation, the driver would have had to keep that pedal jammed for a long time and through lots of chaos. Look at the setup where the accident happened. The car had to first jump the curb, which takes a lot of force and gives the driver plenty of feedback that something is very wrong, and then still managed to run across the entire sidewalk area and hit the building with enough force to embed itself almost fully through the wall.
Given all that and the fact that we're talking about a car that has full control of its faculties and regularly makes bad "decisions" about how to use them, Occam says it most likely wasn't the driver.
Now they will try other tacks, maybe offer Qualcomm engineers huge salaries to come to China and build a competing chip.
Maybe they can even give the new company a really cool-sounding name -- say, HiSilicon.
Are these ad companies so clueless that they don't think some nerd is going to notice this?
They probably were assuming such a nerd would also be able to parse the clear implication that an iPhone is merely the sum of its specs.
Restricting "poaching" is restraint of trade.
Nor did Nikola ask for any restraint on poaching. Did you actually read the complaint?
It also has absolutely nothing legally to do with patents.
Nor did Nikola say it did. Same question applies.
Over time I've had pretty good luck with Seagate drives, and if you look at the data it seems some models are more stable than others...
Yeah, I outfitted a RAID array with the infamous ST3000DM001 several years ago and had to replace three or four of them during the two-year warranty period (as I recall, one of the warranty replacements itself crapped out fairly quickly). After the warranties ran out, I started replacing failures with WD and HGST and things have stabilized. Had I originally sprung for 4TB Seagates I probably would have been fine in comparison.
Why? The numbers by Tesla look pretty much as expected.
The past-performance numbers indeed were in range of expectations -- a mere $1B of cash burned for the quarter. But of course Tesla's viability depends on changing that trajectory quickly, and Elon's general refusal to answer questions about today's fundamentals and incessant focus on the Next Big Thing coming down the road Real Soon Now strongly suggest that's not happening.
LEDs have been around since the 60s
I'm not sure at this point if you're just trolling or truly can't comprehend that the issue is not the bulb but the nature of the current applied to it.
LEDs powered by a properly rectified and smoothed DC source don't flicker.
LEDs powered by a raw rectifier (sometimes just half-wave, no less), or one with an insufficiently sized smoothing capacitor, do flicker. Often badly.
I pointed this out in my very first post.
Go read some basic articles on AC-DC conversion. Maybe even slip the term "LED" in there and see what you get.
I'm not sure what your issue is, but it's pretty severe. I'd recommend therapy. You're on the internet . . . slinging insults
The good news for you is that projection is treatable.
If Nicola's design patents cover these items they are covering design elements that have been in use for decades on all the other trucks out there and will clearly be invalid. If they cover the unique design elements that make their design different than every other truck on the road out there I see little similarity between Nicola and Tesla.
No need to speculate -- the patents and the features they allegedly cover are all described in detail in the complaint I linked to above. Would you put, for example, the wraparound windshield in the "have been in use for decades on all the other trucks out there" bucket, or the "unique design element that make their design different than every other truck on the road out there" bucket?
Again, your only response is to the words you put in my mouth. To the extent anything I said adds up to an "assertion," it's that this technology has been crammed down our throats so quickly and so comprehensively that we don't know the extent to which that's going to cause problems, and if we have the misfortune of not finding out for another 20-30 years that they actually cause severe problems across a healthy slice of the population, that's a whole generation of toothpaste that's not going back in the tube.
In no other circumstance of even close to this magnitude in this day and age has something like this been allowed or even contemplated without the proponents of the new technology being required to make a sufficient showing that it would not have adverse side effects before being rolled out on a widespread scale. That was shamelessly bypassed in this circumstance, because green.
Now, if you'd like to try to cogently discuss anything I actually said, I'm happy to do that. Barring that, I'm done putting the rattle back on the highchair.
According to Nikola, Tesla's truck is an impossible scam that will never work. So why bother suing a product that supposedly will never come to market?
For one thing, because Tesla's big PR splash about its truck can harm Nikola's sales of its truck even if Tesla's truck never actually comes to market.
Are these design patents?
Yes.
how many ways are there to style a semi-truck?
Apparently enough ways that Nikola was able to get design patents on its particular one. In particular, I don't recall seeing anything like Nikola's wraparound windshield out in the wild.
The term "patent troll" typically describes a patentholder who is not actually practicing the patent but simply trying to monetize it.
Nikola has been actively developing its electric and hydrogen powered semi trucks for several years now and is targeting its first commercial sales next year. The complaint alleges that Tesla first tried to poach Nikola's chief design engineer, and then simply copied Nikola's patented design.
That doesn't strike me as being even close to a typical "patent troll" scenario.
You must be exhausted after so soundly demolishing that straw man. Here's exactly what I said:
Point a high-speed camera at one sometime and wonder to yourself what sort of biological and ecological effects will come to light a few decades down the road after widespread adoption .
If your position is that there's nothing to worry about because the earliest studies about physiological effects of an upstart lighting technology that has now largely displaced incandescent lighting (a sea change forced on society over a remarkably short period of time and with precious little concern for the potential side effects of doing so) didn't conclusively find any, weren't structured to your satisfaction, or whatever else you feel like picking at, let's just say we've all seen that movie before. Many times.
New LED light bulbs fit into my old fixtures just fine. They're all screw-in. The price has gone way down since the first days of LED bulbs, and they last a lot long than my old incandescent bulbs used to.
Prices have gone down, no doubt, but the cheaper ones in particular tend to flicker like the blazes due to sloppy rectification. Point a high-speed camera at one sometime and wonder to yourself what sort of biological and ecological effects will come to light a few decades down the road after widespread adoption.
Gamevice filed a second suit in California on March 29 of this year alleging infringement of two patents different than the one they asserted in the 2017 case. They then filed the ITC complaint a day later based on the same two patents.
That's a common play for big competitors. As the summary says, the ITC can issue an exclusion order so the products physically can't enter the U.S. anymore. That's an extreme remedy that became a lot harder to get in a federal court around a decade ago, so the ITC has become a lot more popular forum. But you can't get money damages in the ITC, so patentholders often file parallel suits in both forums. The federal court case will be stayed (put on hold) while the ITC investigates, and then after the stay is lifted Gamevice can litigate in federal court for money damages.
Read the words from your own link:
For competitive purposes, a monopolist may use forced buying, or "tie-in" sales, to gain sales in other markets where it is not dominant and to make it more difficult for rivals in those markets to obtain sales. This may limit consumer choice for buyers wanting to purchase one ("tying") product by forcing them to also buy a second ("tied") product as well. Typically, the "tied" product may be a less desirable one that the buyer might not purchase unless required to do so, or may prefer to get from a different seller. If the seller offering the tied products has sufficient market power in the "tying" product, these arrangements can violate the antitrust laws.
If you're free to buy the products separately, by definition they're not "tied." From the Supreme Court of the United States:
For our purposes a tying arrangement may be defined as an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product , or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier.[4]
[4] Of course where the buyer is free to take either product by itself there is no tying problem even though the seller may also offer the two items as a unit at a single price.
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 US 1, 6 (1958) (emphasis mine).
What this means is that it may cost Comcast more if you stream from Youtube than their proprietary services
Um, yeah. And that's why they structure their service offerings to effectively pass that extra cost along to customers that use more external bandwidth. Which was OP's point in a nutshell.
Comcast's network sends the "regular TV" (not that there's actually such a thing anymore) over the same network as the rest of the data, so yes, they will be using roughly the same amount of bandwidth in fact as someone saturating the pipe with HD youtube videos or what have you.
As is often the case in this sort of discussion, you're conflating LAN bandwidth with WAN bandwidth. One costs a tiny bit more than the other. I won't kill the suspense as to which is which.
Also, the thought that you're really too dumb to see this is very depressing for me
Indeed.
Not to mention that this is potentially a violation of anti trust bundling [ftc.gov] laws.
Not if they separately offer the faster Internet service for sale. As your link explains, the only way you can have illegal tying is if the bundle is the only way you can buy the product you want. Otherwise it's not "tied" by definition.
I have to say this is the first time I've ever anyone suggest that Net Neutrality would have forced an ISP to sell the same size pipe to all customers. Is your theory that people who want more bandwidth shouldn't be able to buy it, or that people who don't need bandwidth should be forced to pay for it?
Next thing you know, auto makers are going to refuse to give a navigation system to people who don't buy the premium package. Bastards.
True point, but as it turns out orthogonal to the study -- the summary is pretty misleading even for around here. The study was about the presence of plastics in the lakes, and that some of the plastics contain high levels of heavy metals. They didn't find heavy metals in the water itself, and specifically punt on whether it's even possible for the heavy metals to leach from the plastics:
The migratability of hazardous elements from the polymeric matrix is likely to determine their environmental impacts and is recommended as a future area of research.
Given the notoriously well-known saying at the time that the Spectrum keyboard felt like typing on dead flesh.
Why not spend your cycles actually arguing Tesla's merits (if you feel there are any)?
Or, you can just plug your virtual fingers in your virtual ears and virtually say "LA LA LA LA... I CAN'T HEEEAAAR YOU!!!!"
What a colossal lack of intestinal fortitude.
You probably don't realize we all do that. Not exclusively from the past, but it is important. When I drive to work in freezing temperatures, I have a past knowledge making it safer. I know if it rained/snowed/sleeted, I smell see the affects of water to know where it may flood or freeze, I see it on the wipers, I know what roads are high traffic and were salted, and had high traffic to either maintain a clear surface (or were more likely to turn snow into ice, and to avoid.) I know to look out for road sections that are shaded from sun, or bridges.
Similar with looking at tracks of other cars, and have to trust the cars around me, looking way ahead for brake lights over hills...
I get all that, but every single one of those examples involves your immediate senses in combination with your general knowledge of your surroundings, and you make your operational decisions based on the least common denominator of the two. In no circumstance are you squeezing your eyes shut to what you're actually seeing and feeling and instead guessing at your environmental conditions based on some weather/traffic report you heard on the radio 5 minutes ago. And that's ultimately what OP was proposing -- reliance on stale environmental data in an effort to reduce sensor costs.
If a car system assumes the worst, and thus doesn't get help from off car data, they will be driving 20 mph on all paved roads in freezing temperatures.
Good. Hazardous driving conditions dramatically amplify the cost of mistakes. If that's all the faster they can safely go based on what they're able to sense of the real world around them, it'll be even clearer they're not ready for prime time.