And perhaps equally douchebaggery corrupt towing services, all of which should have known about the physical keys.
On the other hand... Its entirely possible that the interference was so strong that even getting in the car your fob would not allow it to start. There is no physical key slot for starting the engine in my car, but holding the but of the fob against the start button is supposed to work. If that was being DOSed as well, towing might be the only option.
entry? sure its silly no to have a mechanical entry method, but starting? If you have a newer car you probably have a key with a chip in it. If the car cant read that chip then it wont start. I had the wireless modue go back in my car last year. the effect was the remote door unlock stoped working, tire presure sensors stoped working, and the car wouldnt start. Jamming/interfearance could produce the same effect even with the key itself in working order.
Not only that, but your spelling "stoped" working as well. Please get that wireless "modue" fixed as soon as possible, mKay?
I understood that to mean he's pissing away his corporation's money. As in, letting a building in one of the highest rent markets in the country lay unused. There's no way that building makes more money empty than it does with tenants.
I;m not sure he would make much renting that place. It would probably inhibit his advertising campaign. Its not that big such that he would have many tenants anyway.
Its a very little ( by NYC standards) building, with no parking.
Here's a street view, its the building behind the tiny police department office.
This Google Satellite image shows its about 6 car lengths long, wedge shaped building. You simply aren't going to get much rent for that building, with no parking, no view.
Sitting on his money? You know this How? Nothing in the story indicates what he is spending his personal money on. For all you know he funds orphanages in East Timor.
But its easy to make accusations on the internet isn't it?
If he's making a profit anyway, why not rent or give the space to local community groups / organisations?
Maybe it is in need of significant upgrades given its age, an the insurance alone might make it unprofitable to rent or donate space to community groups. Besides, its not the best place for such groups, their constituents don't live there.
Still, the story may not be totally true, as Google Streetview shows lights on in on the 8th floor and Chase bank still appears to have a branch on the ground floor.
Amtrak trains consistently go above 100 mph. Its because of certain laws in some states that limit your top speed to something as low as 70-80. In the NE corridor, which I ride a lot, the train tops out at ~120 mph in all the states on the route except Connecticut due to state laws and probably because they are too cheap/lazy to convert their railroad crossings to something more safe.
Wrong.
There is only one route that exceeds 100mph, and your with your limited experience you happen to ride that single route and assume it applies nationwide.
From the Amtrak Facts page you learn: Amtrak carried more than three times as many riders between Washington and New York City as the airline industry. Amtrak carried more riders between New York and Boston than all of the airlines combined. The Boston-New York-Washington portion of the Northeast Corridor carried 10,899,889 passengers in FY 2011 on Acela Express, Northeast Regional Service or other trains. This route accounts for more than half of all Amtrak operated Trains, and the Only track that Amtrak itself owns. 38 trains every weekday head north form Washington DC and a similar number head south from northern seaboard cities.
Turns out that section of track (Boston New York, Washington DC) is the ONLY segment of track on which exceeds 100mph. Turns out this is the only portion of the railway that operates predominantly as an inter-urban railway other than a few trains in LA.
You simply can not make up a half hour stop, or even a 15 minute stop at more than a very few cities. You need this time to board and de-train passengers, stow luggage, etc.
You have to slow down to approach to cities, curves, hills, and accelerate on departure from cities.
Start chopping half hour segments out of 10 hour trip an see what your average speed needs to be. Anything beyond 6 stops along the route means you can't possibly make up the time.
This new train has an 8 to 10 hour scheduled travel time and covers 2100 km.
That means it averages 210km/h including stops along the way (it's not direct).
If there are any stops along the way you will need much greater speeds than 210km/h. I suggest the route is undoable in 10 hours if there is even a few stops unless the train spends a great deal of time at 300km/h.
The GP insists, first and foremost, that it not be subsidized by Government money (tax payers).
That immediately sets an impossibly high barrier. One that can't be met by any transportation system, water system, sewer system, or communication system.
Ignorance of the proper place for government expenditures is an unfortunate trait of ultra-conservative types. When any government involvement with societal life other than national defense is arbitrarily off the table, you have an impossible situation and a recipe for an agrarian society.
Roads, and railroads, necessarily require government money and government powers. If one stubborn farmer can stand in the way of a road or railroad (as would be the case in a purely private development) it would be legally impossible to build anything, not just cost prohibitive.
I suspect the GP never thinks about that while driving to work on that government road, or flushing his toilet to that government sewer while surfing the web on that government bandwidth.
The US also has the worst on-time stats (train) of any developed country. It is still faster to travel long distances in the US by air. Flying from Boston to Los Angeles is 3,000 miles by road (twice the China rail length). It's 2604 miles by air and only takes 6 hours 21 minutes (413mph avg). The same trip by China's train would take 14 hours assuming that it ran 186mph the entire trip. Unfortunately now the US you are equally likely to be groped by a TSA agent by air or rail.
It seems disingenuous to compare a non-stop air flight to a mode of travel designed to provide transportation to many points in between the two end points. How long would you think it would take if there were twenty stops on each flight between Boston and LA? Try sticking with Apples to Apples when doing comparisons.
The on time record is abysmal. But it is that way by law. The law that established Amtrak was changed at the last minute to give freight the right of way. Amtrak is working pretty much as designed. The design was severely flawed. It was, after all, a creation of Congress.
And, for the record, I've never seen a TSA agent on an Amtrak train or at an Amtrak station. Not saying they don't show up, more as a muscle flexing exercise and trial balloon, but is is extremely unusual. Pretty hard to hijack a train and take down a sky scraper with it.
Amtrak top speeds is around 80mph. They are physically capable of going faster, but the cost (fuel) and the track conditions generally don't allow it.
Amtrak trains are sidelined for any passing freight trains, and have to slow down to traverse sections of poor track, and towns. When Amtrak was conceived, it was supposed to have precedence over Freight. That lasted all of 12 minutes, before the railroad which "own" and maintain the track got Congress to strip that language.
(I but "own" in quotes because in most cases, these railway right-of-ways were historically simply granted to the railroads for zero dollars.)
Its cost prohibitive to build new railbeds today, due to the cost of land. This restriction doesn't apply in a command-economy such as China.
The best that could be done would be to build high-speed passenger rail along the Interstate highway system right-of-way. Even this will never happen because its not perceived as important as dumping money down the social program rat hole. Small projects are underway, principally in California, but I suspect these will be gobbled up by freight or budget cuts long before they are completed.
People should ride Amtrak. Its an enjoyable way to travel. Just don't go by train if you are in a hurry.
Antibiotic resistance is probably one of the worst things we're facing down in the coming century or so,
This is true, and finding MRSA in the wild brings this much closer be becoming a far more universal problem.
The playing field is vastly different than in the pre-penicillin days when the only hope of finding a "cure" was an exhaustive search to find a compound that would kill the bugs. The very name MRSA stems from resistance to penicillin type drugs. Now with rapid DNA sequencing we can not only identify MRSA much faster, but we _should_ also be able to find additional ways to kill it, including some physical means against which there is no way of developing resistance.
I suspect the way forward will be in designer drugs rather than the happening upon something that works being found on moldy toast.
DNA sequencing has also shown that there is many more than one form of MRSA.
That is, the purpose of keeping a human being in the loop just for disaster scenarios might be self-defeating if the driver does not possess the experience to best resolve the situation.
Even the current law in Nevada acknowledges that the operator will not need to pay attention while the car is operating itself. So it seems clear to me that Google has convinced the regulators that having a human in the loop is NOT necessary, and perhaps as you suggest, self defeating.
My wife, even from the back seat, would be overriding the computer on a minute by minute basis.
Google cars know there is a stop sign there because Google's driverless test cars have about $150,000 in equipment including a $70,000 lidar (laser radar) system, plus a Velodyne 64-beam laser range finder mounted on the top. They also have on board detailed maps. (Probably a lot more detailed than Google Maps).
Second, if a shrub is in the middle of the road, the car would avoid it. If the Shrub moved, the car would immediately stop.
Your point is probably correct, someone is going to get sued eventually. But it probably won't be for such a trivial reason. And there is plenty of legal precedent for acquittal for hitting people (all too often children) who dart out between parked vehicles when humans are driving. The car will probably have video recordings of the accident for Google's lawyers and engineers to fall back on.
So I doubt it will be a field day for the lawyers when/if this technology is released to the general public. By the time this technology is sold to the public the vast majority routine driving and a great teal of the corner cases will be handled.
I suspect the Ambulance chasing Lawyers will have an even tougher time suing when an automated car is involved because they can't claim inattentive driving, impairment, speeding, following too close, of failure to follow the law, or malice. The car is likely to make fewer errors, and certainly fewer dumb (or inattentive) errors, and virtually zero dereliction of duty errors.
Here is a hint, we are actually very bad are creating smart machines. A 9 YO would be a more intelligent driver any most super computers.
In relation to the present discussion, I'd have to say that Google's driver-less cars pretty much put the lie to that statement. In August 2012, Google announced that they have completed over 300,000 autonomous-driving miles accident-free, typically have about a dozen cars on the road at any given time. Not explicitly stated in their announcement was how often the driver had to take command.
Further, the summary above may be wrong, because the Nevada law also acknowledges that the operator will not need to pay attention while the car is operating itself, which implies the State has no reasonable expectation of holding the driver responsible for accidents.
Slashdot Mirror
Negative. Unlocking the car from the inside sets off the alarm. Using your key on any OEM system will disarm the alarm.
Depends entirely on the car.
My owner's manual specifically states:
The driver’s door key cylinder cannot arm or disarm the Vehicle
Security Alarm.
And perhaps equally douchebaggery corrupt towing services, all of which should have known about the physical keys.
On the other hand...
Its entirely possible that the interference was so strong that even getting in the car your fob would not allow it to start.
There is no physical key slot for starting the engine in my car, but holding the but of the fob against the start button is
supposed to work.
If that was being DOSed as well, towing might be the only option.
And we know its a "HE" because?
entry? sure its silly no to have a mechanical entry method, but starting? If you have a newer car you probably have a key with a chip in it. If the car cant read that chip then it wont start. I had the wireless modue go back in my car last year. the effect was the remote door unlock stoped working, tire presure sensors stoped working, and the car wouldnt start. Jamming/interfearance could produce the same effect even with the key itself in working order.
Not only that, but your spelling "stoped" working as well.
Please get that wireless "modue" fixed as soon as possible, mKay?
I know a lot of people who are addicted to Dunkin. Getting someone into the store for the first time
only costing a buck is worth it.
Dunkin' Brands opened its 10,000th location of Dunkin' Donuts in mid-December. Don't assume every ad manager in an organization that big is an idiot.
I understood that to mean he's pissing away his corporation's money. As in, letting a building in one of the highest rent markets in the country lay unused. There's no way that building makes more money empty than it does with tenants.
I;m not sure he would make much renting that place. It would probably inhibit his advertising campaign. Its not that big such that he would have many tenants anyway.
Its a very little ( by NYC standards) building, with no parking.
Here's a link to the 3D view on Google Maps. (Fairly resource intensive view).
Here's a street view, its the building behind the tiny police department office.
This Google Satellite image shows its about 6 car lengths long, wedge shaped building. You simply aren't going to get much rent for that building, with no parking, no view.
It appears there isn't any windows in this building at all, the ground floor appears to have a Walgreens, if it is the building I think it is.
That billboard would have to convince something like 1 in 10 people that sees it to go buy a coffee from them to make up its cost.
Nonsense. One in 1000 would make it profitable, and one in 100 would make it very profitable.
Sitting on his money? You know this How?
Nothing in the story indicates what he is spending his personal money on. For all you know he funds orphanages in East Timor.
But its easy to make accusations on the internet isn't it?
Ever consider he may not have tenants because no one would want to have 1,000,000 watts of light pouring into their office each and every day?
The signs point outward, do they not?
If he's making a profit anyway, why not rent or give the space to local community groups / organisations?
Maybe it is in need of significant upgrades given its age, an the insurance alone might make it unprofitable to rent or donate space to community groups.
Besides, its not the best place for such groups, their constituents don't live there.
Still, the story may not be totally true, as Google Streetview shows lights on in on the 8th floor and Chase bank still appears to have a branch on the ground floor.
bull crap.
Amtrak trains consistently go above 100 mph. Its because of certain laws in some states that limit your top speed to something as low as 70-80. In the NE corridor, which I ride a lot, the train tops out at ~120 mph in all the states on the route except Connecticut due to state laws and probably because they are too cheap/lazy to convert their railroad crossings to something more safe.
Wrong.
There is only one route that exceeds 100mph, and your with your limited experience you happen to ride that single route and assume it applies nationwide.
From the Amtrak Facts page you learn:
Amtrak carried more than three times as many riders between Washington and New York City as the airline industry.
Amtrak carried more riders between New York and Boston than all of the airlines combined.
The Boston-New York-Washington portion of the Northeast Corridor carried 10,899,889 passengers in FY 2011 on Acela Express, Northeast Regional Service or other trains.
This route accounts for more than half of all Amtrak operated Trains, and the Only track that Amtrak itself owns.
38 trains every weekday head north form Washington DC and a similar number head south from northern seaboard cities.
Turns out that section of track (Boston New York, Washington DC) is the ONLY segment of track on which exceeds 100mph.
Turns out this is the only portion of the railway that operates predominantly as an inter-urban railway other than a few trains in LA.
There are only a few recently rebuilt eastern seaboard track lines where Amtrak will exceed 80mph under any circumstances.
Instead of acting so smart, why not do the math?
You simply can not make up a half hour stop, or even a 15 minute stop at more than a very few cities.
You need this time to board and de-train passengers, stow luggage, etc.
You have to slow down to approach to cities, curves, hills, and accelerate on departure from cities.
Start chopping half hour segments out of 10 hour trip an see what your average speed needs to be.
Anything beyond 6 stops along the route means you can't possibly make up the time.
It is far easier to cook a piece of meat sufficiently to kill germs than to cook your salad/fruits.
Not to mention your left arm, once it gets infected.
he's trying vainly to be funny.
Apparently the mods disagree with you.
This new train has an 8 to 10 hour scheduled travel time and covers 2100 km.
That means it averages 210km/h including stops along the way (it's not direct).
If there are any stops along the way you will need much greater speeds than 210km/h.
I suggest the route is undoable in 10 hours if there is even a few stops unless the train spends a great deal of time at 300km/h.
You could have hit the airport and been there in far less time. Leaving you time to eat at a nice restaurant and sleep in a hotel.
Do they even have booze on Amtrack?
Yes they do, and they also have a pretty good restaurant, and the hotel rooms, while small, are quite nice.
The GP insists, first and foremost, that it not be subsidized by Government money (tax payers).
That immediately sets an impossibly high barrier. One that can't be met by any transportation system, water system, sewer system, or communication system.
Ignorance of the proper place for government expenditures is an unfortunate trait of ultra-conservative types. When any government involvement with societal life other than national defense is arbitrarily off the table, you have an impossible situation and a recipe for an agrarian society.
Roads, and railroads, necessarily require government money and government powers. If one stubborn farmer can stand in the way of a road or railroad (as would be the case in a purely private development) it would be legally impossible to build anything, not just cost prohibitive.
I suspect the GP never thinks about that while driving to work on that government road, or flushing his toilet to that government sewer while surfing the web on that government bandwidth.
The US also has the worst on-time stats (train) of any developed country. It is still faster to travel long distances in the US by air. Flying from Boston to Los Angeles is 3,000 miles by road (twice the China rail length). It's 2604 miles by air and only takes 6 hours 21 minutes (413mph avg). The same trip by China's train would take 14 hours assuming that it ran 186mph the entire trip. Unfortunately now the US you are equally likely to be groped by a TSA agent by air or rail.
It seems disingenuous to compare a non-stop air flight to a mode of travel designed to provide transportation to many points in between the two end points. How long would you think it would take if there were twenty stops on each flight between Boston and LA? Try sticking with Apples to Apples when doing comparisons.
The on time record is abysmal. But it is that way by law. The law that established Amtrak was changed at the last minute to give freight the right of way.
Amtrak is working pretty much as designed. The design was severely flawed. It was, after all, a creation of Congress.
And, for the record, I've never seen a TSA agent on an Amtrak train or at an Amtrak station. Not saying they don't show up, more as a muscle flexing exercise and trial balloon, but is is extremely unusual. Pretty hard to hijack a train and take down a sky scraper with it.
Amtrak top speeds is around 80mph. They are physically capable of going faster, but the cost (fuel) and the track conditions generally don't allow it.
Amtrak trains are sidelined for any passing freight trains, and have to slow down to traverse sections of poor track, and towns. When Amtrak was conceived, it was supposed to have precedence over Freight. That lasted all of 12 minutes, before the railroad which "own" and maintain the track got Congress to strip that language.
(I but "own" in quotes because in most cases, these railway right-of-ways were historically simply granted to the railroads for zero dollars.)
Its cost prohibitive to build new railbeds today, due to the cost of land. This restriction doesn't apply in a command-economy such as China.
The best that could be done would be to build high-speed passenger rail along the Interstate highway system right-of-way. Even this will never happen because its not perceived as important as dumping money down the social program rat hole. Small projects are underway, principally in California, but I suspect these will be gobbled up by freight or budget cuts long before they are completed.
People should ride Amtrak. Its an enjoyable way to travel. Just don't go by train if you are in a hurry.
Antibiotic resistance is probably one of the worst things we're facing down in the coming century or so,
This is true, and finding MRSA in the wild brings this much closer be becoming a far more universal problem.
The playing field is vastly different than in the pre-penicillin days when the only hope of finding a "cure" was an exhaustive search to find a compound that would kill the bugs. The very name MRSA stems from resistance to penicillin type drugs. Now with rapid DNA sequencing we can not only identify MRSA much faster, but we _should_ also be able to find additional ways to kill it, including some physical means against which there is no way of developing resistance.
I suspect the way forward will be in designer drugs rather than the happening upon something that works being found on moldy toast.
DNA sequencing has also shown that there is many more than one form of MRSA.
That is, the purpose of keeping a human being in the loop just for disaster scenarios might be self-defeating if the driver does not possess the experience to best resolve the situation.
Even the current law in Nevada acknowledges that the operator will not need to pay attention while the car is operating itself. So it seems clear to me that Google has convinced the regulators that having a human in the loop is NOT necessary, and perhaps as you suggest, self defeating.
My wife, even from the back seat, would be overriding the computer on a minute by minute basis.
Wait, even your contrived case make no sense.
Google cars know there is a stop sign there because Google's driverless test cars have about $150,000 in equipment including a $70,000 lidar (laser radar) system, plus a Velodyne 64-beam laser range finder mounted on the top. They also have on board detailed maps. (Probably a lot more detailed than Google Maps).
Second, if a shrub is in the middle of the road, the car would avoid it. If the Shrub moved, the car would immediately stop.
Your point is probably correct, someone is going to get sued eventually. But it probably won't be for such a trivial reason. And there is plenty of legal precedent for acquittal for hitting people (all too often children) who dart out between parked vehicles when humans are driving. The car will probably have video recordings of the accident for Google's lawyers and engineers to fall back on.
So I doubt it will be a field day for the lawyers when/if this technology is released to the general public. By the time this technology is sold to the public the vast majority routine driving and a great teal of the corner cases will be handled.
I suspect the Ambulance chasing Lawyers will have an even tougher time suing when an automated car is involved because they can't claim inattentive driving, impairment, speeding, following too close, of failure to follow the law, or malice. The car is likely to make fewer errors, and certainly fewer dumb (or inattentive) errors, and virtually zero dereliction of duty errors.
You must never have played a game with AI.
Here is a hint, we are actually very bad are creating smart machines. A 9 YO would be a more intelligent driver any most super computers.
In relation to the present discussion, I'd have to say that Google's driver-less cars pretty much put the lie to that statement.
In August 2012, Google announced that they have completed over 300,000 autonomous-driving miles accident-free, typically have about a dozen cars on the road at any given time. Not explicitly stated in their announcement was how often the driver had to take command.
Further, the summary above may be wrong, because the Nevada law also acknowledges that the operator will not need to pay attention while the car is operating itself, which implies the State has no reasonable expectation of holding the driver responsible for accidents.