But electric motors may not have that problem. There is no longitudinal shaft, simply a motor+differential on the front and another on the back. Some designs by Protean use one motor per wheel, built into the wheel. But this is a lot of un-sprung weight.
Mercedes and Tesla put their motors inboard of the wheel because its simpler. You still end up with short shafts and a shallow angle CV joint (which is a lot more efficient).
I prefer Lamborghini's solution. Nothing against gullwings, but Lambo doors just look sweet, plus they don't need fancy sensors to keep from whacking stuff.
The Lambo doors are fragile. Single mount point requiring frame stiffening. Open them in a garage, and you better have 4 feet of clear space above because that is how far they stick up. (There are parking garages with way less than that).
Ask anyone who has had one for more than a year. They've all had to have them adjusted due to whacking stuff.
On the contrary, it looks like they need less space than convention doors. They are not like the ones on McFly's DeLorean. They are double hinged. If you can drive into a parking space, you can open the doors.
On the image on the Model X page, there is a slider that animates the doors. It looks like the doors take about 5 to 8 inches beyond the side of the car, but only after sliding straight up. This design takes advantage of the slope if the sides in adjacent cars.
The doors are supported all along their top edges, way more practical and less damage prone than Lamborghini fragile solution of single pivot point.
I see nothing about this design that would require sensors, it takes way less room than a swinging door. Although you might expect that on a high end car, as well as power assist.
The summary isn't the only thing lacking in details.
The first link in the story, about Tesla selling "WELL" in Norway isn't backed up by a single statistic. Following the link show a figure of 13,000 electric go-carts in Oslo, and mere mention of Tesla, with another link that suggests there may actually be ONE Tesla in all of Norway. The only reason it is mentioned at all is that the Tesla Chargers trip off due to fluctuation on the Norwegian electrical grid that are considered normal there, but would not be tolerated in the US or the rest of the EU.
That said, at $40 K, I'd be a buyer. At least for the day to day trips.
Sure, one extremely popular destination on the internet is safe, because throngs of angry users will raise a stink. But what about all the small players who get throttled into oblivion before their innovations get a chance to have the kind of army of defensive consumers that Netflix has?
Nobody is going to slow down some small player, because, well, they are a small player.
But slowing AWS blocks a boat load of people who go there for hosting precisely because the have become popular and they need to scale. The point of the test mentioned in the summary is that it makes it easy to compare the various sites, side by side.
My results on that page is that AWS California gets 1/3 the speed as AWS Oregon, but linode Freemont is worse.
I think the well is drying up, because people are sick of beta or the arguments about beta, nobody is submitting any real stories. So they are left with these useless stories.
The social oriented market segment that Dice is seemingly courting seems to be the only segment left. All the tech and nerd types have left the building.
This would absolutely raise the bar of performance for a lot of cops. As the summary says, knowing that you're being monitored all of the time would keep the cops on their best behavior.
The summary is pretty much wrong. Just because they are wearing it does not mean its recording. In fact you really don't have enough storage or bandwidth to record an 8 hour shift.
There are body-cams especially designed to record police encounters for a full shift, but Google Glass is not one of them. So lets put all that nonsense of monitoring the cop away.
The facial recognition capabilities are something to worry about in the future, but I doubt this is available in real time, at least not real time enough for police work. The best it could do would be to ship an image of face off to some computer farm in the sky for matching, with results coming back some minutes or hours later.
In fact the ability to take pictures and have maps (hud) would probably be the most beneficial thing it would have to offer, just like it does for everybody else.
This view is belied by the graphical tools used to design and layout hardware and chips. Higher level languages in particular are largely based on connecting the data flow between various pre-defined blocks or objects - function libraries.
That's basically a scheduling and routing problem. Getting all the leads from hither to yon connecting all the right points. That's drafting, not programming. Akin to wiring a board for an IBM 407 or something. Wiring a board wasn't programming either, (although it was often called that).
Conceptualizing the problem and the solution is the job of wetware. The closest we get to symbolic programming is writing out flow charts, but you can still say in 6 words and one symbol what takes a mountain of code to accomplish. And all too often the flowchart glibly handwaves into existence that mountain of code with just a few words.
Hypersonic missiles are designed to destroy targets within minutes of detecting their position. Detection can be via satellite or done or submarine etc. You need to get a good fix but then you can get the missile there so quickly that the target doesn't have time to move very far.
To be considered hypersonic, a missile must travel at speeds of between Mach 5 and Mach 10, or 3,840–7,680 miles per hour.
From Diego Garcia to Terhan is 3,269 miles, or about an hour of flight time. (Plus, these things are all air-launched from planes so far, so you have to allow time for the carrier plane to take off.)
Even 500 miles at 3840mph is 8.5 minutes. Your typical military ship target would be 3.5 miles away by then. Better hope your hypersonic missile has a nuclear payload.
That "safe" has a few meanings, such as ensuring there are no materials in the drugs that should not be there. Ensuring that the drugs contain what they are supposed to contain, and that the levels are correct.
How about assuring that the drug doesn't doesn't actually kill you?
Safety is one aspect, effectiveness is another. Neither should be left in the hands of drug developers.
We've been down that path before. Every civilized country in the world over sees and regulates the development of drugs. Many countries simply accept the EU or US regulations because they are too small to support their own programs.
We let big Tobacco self regulate right up to 2009. Had the FDA started regulating them in the 30s when it became apparent how bad smoking was who knows how many lives would have been changed.
Get rid of FDA, get rid of government and basically costs drop dramatically that prices could truly be taken down
The FDA doesn't keep drug prices high, they keep people alive. Returning to the days of snake oil is not the solution.
The problem is that patents can be extended by silly little changes that have no real effect, and the world is deprived of the invention or charged unconscionable amounts of money. Glivec (Imatinib) the first of the exceptionally expensive cancer drugs, costing $92,000 a year. Yet its development costs were not that great, and production costs have fallen dramatically.(especially in India).
The drug is Gleevec, not Glivec. I take it, and it's a miracle drug for those it helps. And it's expensive as HECK!
Novartis had its 17 years of patent protection. Invented prior 1996, the first patent expired in 2013, and so Novartis decided to seek a patent on a slightly altered version, to gain 20 year protection. The Indian court saw through this and said No way. Good on them. The drug has paid back its development costs many multiple times already.
This is a common tactic of drug manufacturers as their patents run our they suddenly find a way to color it pink or something equally trivially unimportant change and try to start the patent clock all over. This is a total subversion of the purpose behind patents.
Maybe you want to re-read some history about World War II, especially in the Pacific.
The attack on the US caught us totally flat footed, and our production lines were no where near at the capacity they needed to be, even though we had been sending ships and planes to the British for some time
The War in the Pacific was a pretty close-run thing, there was almost a year where we were running on four beat up carriers, and could have easily lost that fight, and the whole pacific, if just a few battles went just slightly differently.
Further, the Japanese knew they couldn't beat us in the long run. Yamamoto warned them not to attack. But Japan decided to commit suicide.
Now you have to ask yourself if there would ever be a country capable enough and dumb enough to launch hundreds of hypersonic Missiles at the US with anything short of nuclear payloads. Because anything less than nuclear payloads isn't going to cut it. Not if ALL you have is a couple hundred single use hypersonic missiles.
Perhaps in your rush to reply, you didn't read all the way to my second paragraph.
No country is going to pick a fight with any country that can produce hundreds of hypersonic missiles. Anyone using them in massive numbers would be looking at the same number back, or a nuclear response.
Also because hypersonics don't have that much maneuverability they would make a poor anti-ship missile. (These are designed as long range weapons, it takes them a hundred miles just to get up to speed). They would have to change course much quicker than is practical at that speed, (because ships move) or they would have to come on a straight line attack. Current, or upgraded CIWS would be able to handle small numbers.
Meant to say that point defense against hypersonic missiles should not be discounted because laser defense against incoming munitions is improving all the time.
When exactly, have hundreds of incoming missiles been a problem for the US? Saddam Hussein may have a different view. But nobody is going to launch hundreds of hypersonic missiles at the US (or any other country for that matter).
There are two types of defenders against massive missile attacks, those who have no viable defense, (in which case conventional cruise missiles are good enough) and those who could mount a serious defense and/or retaliation, (in which case such an attack would be suicide).
Hypersonic missiles will never be a mass attack weapon, unless the cost comes way way down, and the accuracy becomes kitchen window accurate. Those two things don't tend to happen together. They will always tend to be an expensive solution.
Would it not be easier to just install traffic monitoring devices along roadways, and let your car's on-board navigation system interface with those? That way you don't need the traffic scouting drone, and the inherent risks that come with trying to operate one while driving.
Everybody is carrying a traffic monitoring device in their pocket or purse. Its pretty accurate and up to date too.
Why on earth would you need to manually control the drone? It could easily know the route you are intending to take, and could be 100% automated...
And the airspace over heavy traffic will be totally clear, right? You will be the only drone user on the road? All the drones will be maintained in 100% working order, just like the cars are? And all drivers will resist the urge to watch their drone? And no one would think of hacking them, right?
Also the claim of maneuverability simply can't be justified.
Hypersonic missiles would tear themselves to shreds trying to maneuver at those speeds. Its not particularly hard to intercept a very fast object that you know can't make sharp turns.
If Slashdot wants to do something, they should take a step back and fix the mobile site. Then people will have confidence that they can make the beta site work.
Oh, yeah, the mobile site. I recommend it gets the same treatment as the Beta. Shitcan them both.
Today's mobiles can handle the full site. Even small phones handle it just fine. There is no reason to have the mobile site any more. Scrap it all.
(Well, maybe there is this one guy still using Lynx or something. He needs to man up and install X).
Slashdot Mirror
But electric motors may not have that problem. There is no longitudinal shaft, simply a motor+differential on the front and another on the back.
Some designs by Protean use one motor per wheel, built into the wheel. But this is a lot of un-sprung weight.
Mercedes and Tesla put their motors inboard of the wheel because its simpler. You still end up with short shafts and a shallow angle CV joint (which is a lot more efficient).
I prefer Lamborghini's solution. Nothing against gullwings, but Lambo doors just look sweet, plus they don't need fancy sensors to keep from whacking stuff.
The Lambo doors are fragile. Single mount point requiring frame stiffening. Open them in a garage, and you better have 4 feet of clear space above because that is how far they stick up. (There are parking garages with way less than that).
Ask anyone who has had one for more than a year. They've all had to have them adjusted due to whacking stuff.
On the contrary, it looks like they need less space than convention doors. They are not like the ones on McFly's DeLorean. They are double hinged. If you can drive into a parking space, you can open the doors.
On the image on the Model X page, there is a slider that animates the doors.
It looks like the doors take about 5 to 8 inches beyond the side of the car, but only after sliding straight up. This design takes advantage of the slope if the sides in adjacent cars.
The doors are supported all along their top edges, way more practical and less damage prone than Lamborghini fragile solution of single pivot point.
I see nothing about this design that would require sensors, it takes way less room than a swinging door.
Although you might expect that on a high end car, as well as power assist.
The summary isn't the only thing lacking in details.
The first link in the story, about Tesla selling "WELL" in Norway isn't backed up by a single statistic. Following the link show a figure of 13,000 electric go-carts in Oslo, and mere mention of Tesla, with another link that suggests there may actually be ONE Tesla in all of Norway. The only reason it is mentioned at all is that the Tesla Chargers trip off due to fluctuation on the Norwegian electrical grid that are considered normal there, but would not be tolerated in the US or the rest of the EU.
That said, at $40 K, I'd be a buyer. At least for the day to day trips.
what will happen is the ISPs will prioritize traffic to the big players, and slow EVERYTHING else down.
Well that is exactly OPPOSITE of what this article is all about, where big traffic is getting throttled by big ISPs with competing service.
Sure, one extremely popular destination on the internet is safe, because throngs of angry users will raise a stink. But what about all the small players who get throttled into oblivion before their innovations get a chance to have the kind of army of defensive consumers that Netflix has?
Nobody is going to slow down some small player, because, well, they are a small player.
But slowing AWS blocks a boat load of people who go there for hosting precisely because the have become popular and they need to scale.
The point of the test mentioned in the summary is that it makes it easy to compare the various sites, side by side.
My results on that page is that AWS California gets 1/3 the speed as AWS Oregon, but linode Freemont is worse.
I think the well is drying up, because people are sick of beta or the arguments about beta, nobody is submitting any real stories.
So they are left with these useless stories.
The social oriented market segment that Dice is seemingly courting seems to be the only segment left.
All the tech and nerd types have left the building.
This would absolutely raise the bar of performance for a lot of cops. As the summary says, knowing that you're being monitored all of the time would keep the cops on their best behavior.
The summary is pretty much wrong.
Just because they are wearing it does not mean its recording.
In fact you really don't have enough storage or bandwidth to record an 8 hour shift.
There are body-cams especially designed to record police encounters for a full shift, but Google Glass is not one of them.
So lets put all that nonsense of monitoring the cop away.
The facial recognition capabilities are something to worry about in the future, but I doubt this is available in real time, at least not real time enough for police work. The best it could do would be to ship an image of face off to some computer farm in the sky for matching, with results coming back some minutes or hours later.
In fact the ability to take pictures and have maps (hud) would probably be the most beneficial thing it would have to offer, just like it does
for everybody else.
Your absolute faith in the incorruptibility of the FDA runs contrary to the reality.
I have no such absolute faith.
However, I have even less faith in allowing big pharma govern itself.
This view is belied by the graphical tools used to design and layout hardware and chips. Higher level languages in particular are largely based on connecting the data flow between various pre-defined blocks or objects - function libraries.
That's basically a scheduling and routing problem. Getting all the leads from hither to yon connecting all the right points.
That's drafting, not programming. Akin to wiring a board for an IBM 407 or something.
Wiring a board wasn't programming either, (although it was often called that).
Conceptualizing the problem and the solution is the job of wetware. The closest we get to symbolic programming is writing out flow charts, but you can still say in 6 words and one symbol what takes a mountain of code to accomplish. And all too often the flowchart glibly handwaves into existence that mountain of code with just a few words.
Hypersonic missiles are designed to destroy targets within minutes of detecting their position. Detection can be via satellite or done or submarine etc. You need to get a good fix but then you can get the missile there so quickly that the target doesn't have time to move very far.
To be considered hypersonic, a missile must travel at speeds of between Mach 5 and Mach 10, or 3,840–7,680 miles per hour.
From Diego Garcia to Terhan is 3,269 miles, or about an hour of flight time.
(Plus, these things are all air-launched from planes so far, so you have to allow time for the carrier plane to take off.)
Even 500 miles at 3840mph is 8.5 minutes. Your typical military ship target would be 3.5 miles away by then. Better hope your hypersonic missile has a nuclear payload.
That "safe" has a few meanings, such as ensuring there are no materials in the drugs that should not be there. Ensuring that the drugs contain what they are supposed to contain, and that the levels are correct.
How about assuring that the drug doesn't doesn't actually kill you?
Safety is one aspect, effectiveness is another. Neither should be left in the hands of drug developers.
We've been down that path before. Every civilized country in the world over sees and regulates the development of drugs. Many countries simply accept the EU or US regulations because they are too small to support their own programs.
We let big Tobacco self regulate right up to 2009. Had the FDA started regulating them in the 30s when it became apparent how bad smoking was who knows how many lives would have been changed.
Get rid of FDA, get rid of government and basically costs drop dramatically that prices could truly be taken down
The FDA doesn't keep drug prices high, they keep people alive. Returning to the days of snake oil is not the solution.
The problem is that patents can be extended by silly little changes that have no real effect, and the world is deprived of the invention or charged unconscionable amounts of money. Glivec (Imatinib) the first of the exceptionally expensive cancer drugs, costing $92,000 a year. Yet its development costs were not that great, and production costs have fallen dramatically.(especially in India).
The drug is Gleevec, not Glivec. I take it, and it's a miracle drug for those it helps. And it's expensive as HECK!
Novartis had its 17 years of patent protection. Invented prior 1996, the first patent expired in 2013, and so Novartis decided to seek a patent on a slightly altered version, to gain 20 year protection. The Indian court saw through this and said No way. Good on them.
The drug has paid back its development costs many multiple times already.
This is a common tactic of drug manufacturers as their patents run our they suddenly find a way to color it pink or something equally trivially unimportant change and try to start the patent clock all over. This is a total subversion of the purpose behind patents.
Maybe you want to re-read some history about World War II, especially in the Pacific.
The attack on the US caught us totally flat footed, and our production lines were no where near at the capacity they needed to be, even though we had been sending ships and planes to the British for some time
The War in the Pacific was a pretty close-run thing, there was almost a year where we were running on four beat up carriers, and could have easily lost that fight, and the whole pacific, if just a few battles went just slightly differently.
Further, the Japanese knew they couldn't beat us in the long run. Yamamoto warned them not to attack. But Japan decided to commit suicide.
Now you have to ask yourself if there would ever be a country capable enough and dumb enough to launch hundreds of hypersonic Missiles at the US with anything short of nuclear payloads. Because anything less than nuclear payloads isn't going to cut it. Not if ALL you have is a couple hundred single use hypersonic missiles.
Perhaps in your rush to reply, you didn't read all the way to my second paragraph.
No country is going to pick a fight with any country that can produce hundreds of hypersonic missiles. Anyone using them in massive numbers would be looking at the same number back, or a nuclear response.
Also because hypersonics don't have that much maneuverability they would make a poor anti-ship missile. (These are designed as long range weapons, it takes them a hundred miles just to get up to speed). They would have to change course much quicker than is practical at that speed, (because ships move) or they would have to come on a straight line attack. Current, or upgraded CIWS would be able to handle small numbers.
Oops, messed up last sentence.
Meant to say that point defense against hypersonic missiles should not be discounted because laser defense against incoming munitions is improving all the time.
When exactly, have hundreds of incoming missiles been a problem for the US? Saddam Hussein may have a different view.
But nobody is going to launch hundreds of hypersonic missiles at the US (or any other country for that matter).
There are two types of defenders against massive missile attacks, those who have no viable defense, (in which case conventional cruise missiles are good enough) and those who could mount a serious defense and/or retaliation, (in which case such an attack would be suicide).
Hypersonic missiles will never be a mass attack weapon, unless the cost comes way way down, and the accuracy becomes kitchen window accurate. Those two things don't tend to happen together. They will always tend to be an expensive solution.
Also, against incoming munitions is improving all the time.
Um, whoosh?
Would it not be easier to just install traffic monitoring devices along roadways, and let your car's on-board navigation system interface with those? That way you don't need the traffic scouting drone, and the inherent risks that come with trying to operate one while driving.
Everybody is carrying a traffic monitoring device in their pocket or purse. Its pretty accurate and up to date too.
Why on earth would you need to manually control the drone? It could easily know the route you are intending to take, and could be 100% automated...
And the airspace over heavy traffic will be totally clear, right?
You will be the only drone user on the road?
All the drones will be maintained in 100% working order, just like the cars are?
And all drivers will resist the urge to watch their drone?
And no one would think of hacking them, right?
Can I come back?
No.
Besides, it looks like you've already posted several times in this thread.
Also the claim of maneuverability simply can't be justified.
Hypersonic missiles would tear themselves to shreds trying to maneuver at those speeds. Its not particularly hard to intercept a very fast object that you know can't make sharp turns.
Really? Cuz this post is 6 levels deep and I have no problems using the stock browser ons an HTC One X.
Just not a problem.
If Slashdot wants to do something, they should take a step back and fix the mobile site. Then people will have confidence that they can make the beta site work.
Oh, yeah, the mobile site.
I recommend it gets the same treatment as the Beta. Shitcan them both.
Today's mobiles can handle the full site. Even small phones handle it just fine.
There is no reason to have the mobile site any more.
Scrap it all.
(Well, maybe there is this one guy still using Lynx or something. He needs to man up and install X).