Where do you get 100' from? This isn't even enough separation for current non-self driving cars, only covers thinking distance for those paying attention (0.68s) and leaves no room for braking distance. The recommended 2s gap requires about 300'.
Where I live I'm lucky if the person behind me gives me 5 feet, let alone 100, on the interstate. Oddly enough there are a lot of rear end collisions too since traffic tends to go from 80 to 15 in spots, many just over small hills on the highway. Then traffic comes to a stop and backs up for a few miles and there are more rear end collisions. You would think people would figure out the correlation at some point.
... that some router manufacturers were going to do this?
Because it's easier to just lock the firmware than go to the trouble to lock down part of the hardware. Linksys went out of their way in this case to meet the requirement and allow 3rd party firmware. Counter example is TP Link, who just locked their routers firmware.
Martin Ford in 'The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future' called it the Technology Paradox. Basically an economic collapse due to over automation would defer efforts move forward technologically from that point of advanced automation to the level required for the singularity to occur. Of course that does not take into account a social/economic shift in how we define work and how we distribute wealth. If we moved toward something like a basic income system then we could overcome that speedbump and continue to advance.
I've always wanted to start a CEO outsourcing company, where we replace the CEO with a small team of MBAs from India. Charge 1/10 what the old CEO made and still make out like bandits. One team could comfortably service multiple clients at the same time as well.
The problem is it's not a one-to-one movement of labor in this case. I don't need one repair person per drone. Or even one per 100. In the past we were able to move that labor from ag to manufacturing, and the output from that manufacturing created new industries with labor needs. There isn't a whole lot of that type of outgrowth in this case. We aren't creating new industries here. We are, for the most part, taking existing ones (delivery in this case) and changing them in place.
Before: Truck, Driver, Loaders, Maintenance.
Now: Drone, loaders, Maintenance.
That's a net loss of one employee since the drone is automated, it won't need a driver (pilot). This doesn't even take into account possible back end automation and cutting out the middle man (Amazon, for instance, going direct instead of UPS). Sure there some new programming and engineering jobs but not nearly enough to make up for the losses.
Exactly. Not only are these disruptors coming at us pretty fast, but there are a bunch of them that seem to be converging all at once, and unlike in the past they don't look to be capable of creating enough jobs with equivalent income potential to offset the losses they will bring. There is going to have to be a fundamental shift in our view of how government, economies, and income work over the next 30 or so years or we will end up hollowing out the base of the economy (the lower and middle class workforce who are out there spending all the money that keeps everything working) to the point that it will eventually all fall in on itself and we will be in for a (figuratively, and possibly literally) very violent self correction.
Or they are just too scared to upgrade. I run into this all the time. There is a "if it ain't completely broke and on fire, don't touch it" mentality in corporate IT, especially when it comes to big line of business technologies like ERP. The idea of a upgrade or even a patch scares the crap out of them because if it fails, the business can stall waiting for it to be fixed. All the while the exec are raining hell down on the IT staff.
Many people react differently to alcohol as well. But you have to draw the line somewhere. If we get the drunks and stoners off the road, is it really a big tragedy if a few semi-sober people are removed as well?
So what happens in a few years when they kill the product and leave everyone who bought one out in the cold? Yea, no thanks. Google is has a bad rep for killing anything that isn't an instant hit in the market. Their online products are bad enough but at least there you usually don't pay for it, and you can migrate to something else. Hardware you're just screwed, especially if it relies on a backend service.
Depends on the local law enforcement. If you can get them interested and they think they can prove fraud then yea, they can be punished. I think this has happened once or twice already. In all honesty though it's hard to do. In this particular case, it's possible
Victor R.J.H. Timmers (a),
, Peter A.J. Achten (b)
a University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK
b INNAS BV, 15 Nikkelstraat, 4823 AE Breda, Netherlands
First off, electric cars use their brake pads less, not more. Regenerative brakes do most of the work, and the brakes last 2-3x longer than a regular gasoline car. Tire do last a little less long, but most of those are big particles, and I have never heard of tire dust being considered a major health risk.
Sounds like a hatchet job...
Paper takes this into account, their calculations are based on 0 mg/vkm brake wear for EVs.
And they also cut down on brake dust by using regenerative braking as much as possible.
I think there's some room to move here, to ensure EVs are better on particulates.
Maybe we have to discourage the purchase of 6,000lb Teslas and instead encourage the purchase of 3600lb LEAFs and Bolts.
This thing that particulates being widely considered the most harmful form of air pollution is also new to me. They're a serious problem for sure, but I think other trace emissions like NOx are still quite significant. And that's all ignoring CO2.
The paper takes this into account and lists brake emissions as 0 mg/vkm for EVs.
Electric and hybrid cars use regenerative breaking, such that when the driver brakes lightly the car will use the electric motor as a generator and recharge the battery, hence the braking emissions would be largely reduced. Heavy breaking will use the disc brakes as well as regenerative braking at the same time, so there will be some emissions then, but still less than classical vehicles.
Which is why the paper lists their brake emissions as 0 mg/vkm.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, in self-driving cars you'll be able to smoke pot and that won't work in a self-driving bus.
Or it might work very well. Just depends on the bus :) Imagine an Uber like app, but with a "hotbox" option.
Where do you get 100' from? This isn't even enough separation for current non-self driving cars, only covers thinking distance for those paying attention (0.68s) and leaves no room for braking distance. The recommended 2s gap requires about 300'.
Where I live I'm lucky if the person behind me gives me 5 feet, let alone 100, on the interstate. Oddly enough there are a lot of rear end collisions too since traffic tends to go from 80 to 15 in spots, many just over small hills on the highway. Then traffic comes to a stop and backs up for a few miles and there are more rear end collisions. You would think people would figure out the correlation at some point.
... that some router manufacturers were going to do this?
Because it's easier to just lock the firmware than go to the trouble to lock down part of the hardware. Linksys went out of their way in this case to meet the requirement and allow 3rd party firmware. Counter example is TP Link, who just locked their routers firmware.
And yet... https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9105595&cid=52105989
You don't really get what a CEO DOES, do you ?
Because my post was 100% serious. I have a business plan and everything! Idiot.
Irony, you haz it.
WinRAR isn't free. It costs $29 or you can choose to install it with some malware for free.
"With that being said, once Google threatened to sue us and the city into bankruptcy, it was ordered that the decals be removed immediately."
There Philly PD, FTFY
Because banning addictive substances works 100% of the time with 0 adverse effects.
Martin Ford in 'The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future' called it the Technology Paradox. Basically an economic collapse due to over automation would defer efforts move forward technologically from that point of advanced automation to the level required for the singularity to occur. Of course that does not take into account a social/economic shift in how we define work and how we distribute wealth. If we moved toward something like a basic income system then we could overcome that speedbump and continue to advance.
I've always wanted to start a CEO outsourcing company, where we replace the CEO with a small team of MBAs from India. Charge 1/10 what the old CEO made and still make out like bandits. One team could comfortably service multiple clients at the same time as well.
The problem is it's not a one-to-one movement of labor in this case. I don't need one repair person per drone. Or even one per 100. In the past we were able to move that labor from ag to manufacturing, and the output from that manufacturing created new industries with labor needs. There isn't a whole lot of that type of outgrowth in this case. We aren't creating new industries here. We are, for the most part, taking existing ones (delivery in this case) and changing them in place.
Before: Truck, Driver, Loaders, Maintenance.
Now: Drone, loaders, Maintenance.
That's a net loss of one employee since the drone is automated, it won't need a driver (pilot). This doesn't even take into account possible back end automation and cutting out the middle man (Amazon, for instance, going direct instead of UPS). Sure there some new programming and engineering jobs but not nearly enough to make up for the losses.
Exactly. Not only are these disruptors coming at us pretty fast, but there are a bunch of them that seem to be converging all at once, and unlike in the past they don't look to be capable of creating enough jobs with equivalent income potential to offset the losses they will bring. There is going to have to be a fundamental shift in our view of how government, economies, and income work over the next 30 or so years or we will end up hollowing out the base of the economy (the lower and middle class workforce who are out there spending all the money that keeps everything working) to the point that it will eventually all fall in on itself and we will be in for a (figuratively, and possibly literally) very violent self correction.
Well, in that period of time, their favorite industry seems to have become Gridlock.
You just need to find a way to monetize that!
Well there are plenty of hookers and coke dealers in DC already so there goes the low hanging fruit.
Or they are just too scared to upgrade. I run into this all the time. There is a "if it ain't completely broke and on fire, don't touch it" mentality in corporate IT, especially when it comes to big line of business technologies like ERP. The idea of a upgrade or even a patch scares the crap out of them because if it fails, the business can stall waiting for it to be fixed. All the while the exec are raining hell down on the IT staff.
Many people react differently to alcohol as well. But you have to draw the line somewhere. If we get the drunks and stoners off the road, is it really a big tragedy if a few semi-sober people are removed as well?
I feel the same way about the death penalty.
So what happens in a few years when they kill the product and leave everyone who bought one out in the cold? Yea, no thanks. Google is has a bad rep for killing anything that isn't an instant hit in the market. Their online products are bad enough but at least there you usually don't pay for it, and you can migrate to something else. Hardware you're just screwed, especially if it relies on a backend service.
On the one hand, this lawsuit is, well, bonkers. On the other, he's suing Gawker so.... go crazy email not inventing guy?
Depends on the local law enforcement. If you can get them interested and they think they can prove fraud then yea, they can be punished. I think this has happened once or twice already. In all honesty though it's hard to do. In this particular case, it's possible
Yes, because if there is one thing Britain is known for, it's their superbly reliable automobiles.
Authors of the study are :
Victor R.J.H. Timmers (a),
, Peter A.J. Achten (b)
a University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK
b INNAS BV, 15 Nikkelstraat, 4823 AE Breda, Netherlands
Write them and ask.
Yes, it does. 0 mg/vkm brake wear for EVs. Directly from the paper.
Who knew that stuff was so deadly toxic? Really?
First off, electric cars use their brake pads less, not more. Regenerative brakes do most of the work, and the brakes last 2-3x longer than a regular gasoline car. Tire do last a little less long, but most of those are big particles, and I have never heard of tire dust being considered a major health risk.
Sounds like a hatchet job...
Paper takes this into account, their calculations are based on 0 mg/vkm brake wear for EVs.
And they also cut down on brake dust by using regenerative braking as much as possible.
I think there's some room to move here, to ensure EVs are better on particulates.
Maybe we have to discourage the purchase of 6,000lb Teslas and instead encourage the purchase of 3600lb LEAFs and Bolts.
This thing that particulates being widely considered the most harmful form of air pollution is also new to me. They're a serious problem for sure, but I think other trace emissions like NOx are still quite significant. And that's all ignoring CO2.
The paper takes this into account and lists brake emissions as 0 mg/vkm for EVs.
Electric and hybrid cars use regenerative breaking, such that when the driver brakes lightly the car will use the electric motor as a generator and recharge the battery, hence the braking emissions would be largely reduced. Heavy breaking will use the disc brakes as well as regenerative braking at the same time, so there will be some emissions then, but still less than classical vehicles.
Which is why the paper lists their brake emissions as 0 mg/vkm.