According to the article:
Examples of obstacles include ditches, open water, rocks, underpasses, and construction. All obstructions on the route can be either accommodated or avoided by a commercial 4X4 pick-up truck.
Anyone that has gone offroad can attest to how hard it is to go 25mph consistently or on average. Add in to that the fact that you will have to backtrack and figure out alternate routes means your vehicle is going to be thinking fast and driving very fast.
The article mentions part of the route will be on paved roads, so maybe you can make up a lot of time on those stretches.
Definitely not a trivial challenge. but a fun one for sure.
Some of the non-trivial ingredients:
the offroad vehicle, gps for detecting way points and finish points, camera for detecting obstacles and terrain, algorithm to determine fastest speed for current terrain, feedback to determine whether you are getting close to tip over, algorithm for determining alternate routes.
what else?
Re:airlines created their own mess by chaning pric
on
Which Price is Right?
·
· Score: 1
brand loyalty is not dead. it is ignored in the airline industry, because people are spoon fed this pseudo-science that says you have to compete on price to the detriment of all else. You do NOT have to compete on price if your products or services are different. People will not change carriers for a small price differential. It is a pain and adds extra work to have to barain shop. But all airline travellers know that prices vary so much that they have to engage in these crazy tactics, even if it means messing up your frequent flyer growth path.
By your example, the fast food industry should engage in this "science" because it works so well in the airline industry. Then at lunch every person could look forward to two hours of price checking to decide where to eat. And the fast food industry would be required to install networks of computers and station attendants to enter and check the 70,000 price changes each day. And when does the food get made?...OR the fast food industry could make good tasting food at a reasonable price and we the consumer could go eat at the same places every day without thinking about it, because we know we will get decent food at a decent price.
airlines created their own mess by chaning prices
on
Which Price is Right?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Collectively the airlines change prices 75,000 times a day". All airline customers have been trained to shop around because of this. There is no company or brand loyalty because the customer knows if they dont shop for price they WILL get screwed.
Instead of focusing every cent on how to undercut every other supplier, try providing the customers with quality service at affordable and consistently affordable rates. Customers do not want to be in the price shopping business. That is a lot of work. They want a ticket at a reasonable price. If one airline gave consistently affordable rates and decent service, customers would come back to that airline with confidence instead of changing airlines everytime because of a price blip.
That is not possible with the current environment where the same airline will charge you $1000 more depending on some whim from a competitor. And this is touted as science?
It is not sour grapes. It is reaction to a lot of over hype for an inferior product. Several unspoken secrets that are in the technical specs on their site are that the range of a full charge is at best 15 miles and estimated at 5 miles on rugged/hilly terrain. Secondly, and most importantly, the life of the batteries is only 300 cycles! Do the math: at best you get 4500 miles and at less than optimal you get 1500 miles before you have to replace the batteries. Real world experience will inevitably be less.
Compare this $4000 dollar human transporter with a $1000 moped. A moped has a range of 50-150 miles on a tank, can go 20-55 depending on whether the restrictor is left in and lasts as long as a car. A moped is low tech, so no costly repairs, a moped can be pushed or pedaled on failure, a moped can go in car traffic and bicycle traffic. A moped was not overhyped as a revolutionizing mode of transportation, but is a better deal in all respects.
He makes all these random connections to fill out the article.
The one salient point I take from it is the google strategy, which is: keep your costs down and you will succeed. I think if more companies focused on cheap instead of top of the line, we wouldnt have had the meltdown. All that vc money burning in every dotcom pocket just had to be spent. No it didnt. Very few software apps need top of the line hardware to run. Very few websites need even middle of the line to display their webpages. So why pay top dollar for it? Marketing.
Dont forget with every hardware advance there is always a corresponding new microsoft operating system that sucks up that advance so that the user wont be bothered with better performance.
That is probably what people said about bringing loaded pistols onto airplanes (as carryons) that are screened by metal detectors and armed security personnel. This has happened after 9-11 several times in spite of the increased security efforts.
The terrorists from 9/11 were not looking for the easiest approach when they simultaneously took over 4 planes and drove one into arguably one of the most secure facilities in the world. Nor do I think the next attack will be based on the easiest approach.
A plausible scenario is an altitude triggered explosive device. This is the usual means of taking down aircraft. Triggerable on take off or on landing or on midflight. The technology has been around for quite awhile. It could also be a timer device. Why is everyone focusing on the implausible shooting down scenario. How many terrorist attacks on planes are from a ground based attack (aside from the recent russian training accident - not a terrorist attack)?
A senior law enforcement official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said there had been some intelligence that raised concerns about a previously scheduled flight of Columbia, which was to have carried the same crew. The intelligence, related to Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon, was termed not credible, but the flight was postponed for other reasons.
-- By Ron Fournier Associated Press White House Correspondent
A previous flight with the same crew was recently delayed by a "not credible" terror threat. This is the first israeli astronaut. It would be a credible target for just that reason, but to blow up a supposedly top security target and over texas and with hazardous material, that would be a very meaningful terrorist target. Especially as it would again use all of our own resources for the attack.
The article said that the fix was one week before the attack. To expect all admins to patch their live systems with an unknown and untested patch is ludicrous and irresponsible. Your systems are your livelihood. You dont just blindly start adding code to your live systems because someone in redmond says you should. First thing you do is add the patches to test servers, development servers, and THEN if things work properly and reliably, you roll it out to your production servers. How long do you think it takes a company to regression test their systems after a patch is installed. Or are you one of those people that just blindly installs a patch and then goes home for the weekend, job done?
Too many companies release product without any testing. Install new software and if the system comes up, ship it. Let the customers notify us if they can no longer access our system. MS is propagating this concept. No upgrade or patch should be released to the customer until it is verified functional - atleast as functional as what is currently in use.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article:
Examples of obstacles include ditches, open water, rocks, underpasses, and construction. All obstructions on the route can be either accommodated or avoided by a commercial 4X4 pick-up truck.
Anyone that has gone offroad can attest to how hard it is to go 25mph consistently or on average. Add in to that the fact that you will have to backtrack and figure out alternate routes means your vehicle is going to be thinking fast and driving very fast.
The article mentions part of the route will be on paved roads, so maybe you can make up a lot of time on those stretches.
Definitely not a trivial challenge. but a fun one for sure. Some of the non-trivial ingredients: the offroad vehicle, gps for detecting way points and finish points, camera for detecting obstacles and terrain, algorithm to determine fastest speed for current terrain, feedback to determine whether you are getting close to tip over, algorithm for determining alternate routes.
what else?
brand loyalty is not dead. it is ignored in the airline industry, because people are spoon fed this pseudo-science that says you have to compete on price to the detriment of all else. You do NOT have to compete on price if your products or services are different. People will not change carriers for a small price differential. It is a pain and adds extra work to have to barain shop. But all airline travellers know that prices vary so much that they have to engage in these crazy tactics, even if it means messing up your frequent flyer growth path. By your example, the fast food industry should engage in this "science" because it works so well in the airline industry. Then at lunch every person could look forward to two hours of price checking to decide where to eat. And the fast food industry would be required to install networks of computers and station attendants to enter and check the 70,000 price changes each day. And when does the food get made? ...OR the fast food industry could make good tasting food at a reasonable price and we the consumer could go eat at the same places every day without thinking about it, because we know we will get decent food at a decent price.
"Collectively the airlines change prices 75,000 times a day". All airline customers have been trained to shop around because of this. There is no company or brand loyalty because the customer knows if they dont shop for price they WILL get screwed. Instead of focusing every cent on how to undercut every other supplier, try providing the customers with quality service at affordable and consistently affordable rates. Customers do not want to be in the price shopping business. That is a lot of work. They want a ticket at a reasonable price. If one airline gave consistently affordable rates and decent service, customers would come back to that airline with confidence instead of changing airlines everytime because of a price blip. That is not possible with the current environment where the same airline will charge you $1000 more depending on some whim from a competitor. And this is touted as science?
It is not sour grapes. It is reaction to a lot of over hype for an inferior product. Several unspoken secrets that are in the technical specs on their site are that the range of a full charge is at best 15 miles and estimated at 5 miles on rugged/hilly terrain. Secondly, and most importantly, the life of the batteries is only 300 cycles! Do the math: at best you get 4500 miles and at less than optimal you get 1500 miles before you have to replace the batteries. Real world experience will inevitably be less.
Compare this $4000 dollar human transporter with a $1000 moped. A moped has a range of 50-150 miles on a tank, can go 20-55 depending on whether the restrictor is left in and lasts as long as a car. A moped is low tech, so no costly repairs, a moped can be pushed or pedaled on failure, a moped can go in car traffic and bicycle traffic. A moped was not overhyped as a revolutionizing mode of transportation, but is a better deal in all respects.
He makes all these random connections to fill out the article.
The one salient point I take from it is the google strategy, which is: keep your costs down and you will succeed. I think if more companies focused on cheap instead of top of the line, we wouldnt have had the meltdown. All that vc money burning in every dotcom pocket just had to be spent. No it didnt. Very few software apps need top of the line hardware to run. Very few websites need even middle of the line to display their webpages. So why pay top dollar for it? Marketing.
Dont forget with every hardware advance there is always a corresponding new microsoft operating system that sucks up that advance so that the user wont be bothered with better performance.
That is probably what people said about bringing loaded pistols onto airplanes (as carryons) that are screened by metal detectors and armed security personnel. This has happened after 9-11 several times in spite of the increased security efforts.
The terrorists from 9/11 were not looking for the easiest approach when they simultaneously took over 4 planes and drove one into arguably one of the most secure facilities in the world. Nor do I think the next attack will be based on the easiest approach.
A plausible scenario is an altitude triggered explosive device. This is the usual means of taking down aircraft. Triggerable on take off or on landing or on midflight. The technology has been around for quite awhile. It could also be a timer device. Why is everyone focusing on the implausible shooting down scenario. How many terrorist attacks on planes are from a ground based attack (aside from the recent russian training accident - not a terrorist attack)?
A senior law enforcement official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said there had been some intelligence that raised concerns about a previously scheduled flight of Columbia, which was to have carried the same crew. The intelligence, related to Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon, was termed not credible, but the flight was postponed for other reasons.
-- By Ron Fournier
Associated Press White House Correspondent
A previous flight with the same crew was recently delayed by a "not credible" terror threat. This is the first israeli astronaut. It would be a credible target for just that reason, but to blow up a supposedly top security target and over texas and with hazardous material, that would be a very meaningful terrorist target. Especially as it would again use all of our own resources for the attack.
The article said that the fix was one week before the attack. To expect all admins to patch their live systems with an unknown and untested patch is ludicrous and irresponsible. Your systems are your livelihood. You dont just blindly start adding code to your live systems because someone in redmond says you should. First thing you do is add the patches to test servers, development servers, and THEN if things work properly and reliably, you roll it out to your production servers. How long do you think it takes a company to regression test their systems after a patch is installed. Or are you one of those people that just blindly installs a patch and then goes home for the weekend, job done?
Too many companies release product without any testing. Install new software and if the system comes up, ship it. Let the customers notify us if they can no longer access our system. MS is propagating this concept. No upgrade or patch should be released to the customer until it is verified functional - atleast as functional as what is currently in use.