Looks so small you haven't even got room to put you hands up to cover your eyes, let alone wipe your breakfast off the glass. One can only hope the canopy is made of Peril Sensitive glass, and you get the option of editing any inflight videos so your friends don't get to see you screaming like a schoolgirl. I hope they subcontract with Depends, because you know someone's going to need them, especially since the parachute is at the bottom, and the final descent should be sufficiently terrifying that you wouldn't want anything else floating around your screaming mouth.
Well that's one hurdle. The next is RECOVERY when ICE or FBI or some other 3letter agency walks in an takes your data because one tiny customer use the service for some allegedly nefarious purpose.
The key here is to use a service so big that even god himself would not dare take it down, although the Ayatollah might try. Small cloud services, even if multi-homed are a risky proposition. Even if you do manage to get all your data into them, they are not large enough to push back against any subpoena or search warrant that any misguided judge in some backwater jurisdiction may issue.
Therefore there is no constitutional right to privacy.
Many Supreme Court justices and rulings would disagree with you on that point. Here's a fairly well-sourced discussion on the right of privacy.
Which begins with EXACTLY what I said above: The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. It then goes on to list the depressingly small instances where specific privacy rights are protected. Be careful what you cite.
Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws. Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Actually the deep flaw here is probably in assuming that the Tariff is actually based on the cost of China's production at all.
When you dig into the US dumping regulations you quickly find there is no requirement for any audit of costs or subsidies or anything else. It all amounts to speculation, often taking US/Western manufacturing costs as a basis, then simply substituting Chinese average wages and calling it a day.
Except that surveillance, simply having an approximate idea where you are, is not now, and never was a search. Just like having a detective follow you around is not a search.
The fundamental problem here is that the drafters of the Constitution did not foresee technology that allowed a government to invade your privacy from a distance, and it never occurred to them that invasion of privacy itself was a problem. Therefore there is no constitutional right to privacy. A huge oversight based on the era in which the document was written, where this kind of surveillance required manpower, which was always limited.
Well instead of bitching here on Slashdot, try writing (pen and paper, not email) your representative in congress and insisting they pass the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act, with no watered down provisions.
Is it really so hard to get a warrant? If you can't convince a judge, why should a email to your cell provider suffice?
Well, as the article pointed out, they are using a much finer grained control of the injection precisely to control knock, injecting fuel in up to three shorter bursts.
This also allows them to space those bursts at precise times during the power stroke, such as when the piston is going down, and the expansion of the initial burst of fuel is losing effectiveness due to combustion chamber expansion reducing the instantaneous pressure. Adding a burst of fuel at that point gets you extra power at what would otherwise be the downward (backside) of the power curve.
Previous approaches to this were attempted with variable valve actuation, (essentially getting rid of the cam shaft and using other means of controlling valves more precisely). Costly, but effective.
This approach (precisely controlling fuel delivery) allows you to shape the combustion profile to the continuously varying cylinder volume and perhaps adjusting that for changes in engine loading as well.
Giving all money away? Where did that come from? How is that possibly germane?
Corporations have far more than one goal in mind, and making money is at bes number two or three on the list. If ALL that mattered was making money, Pfizer would stop wasting money making Viagra and start building smartphones or opening Casinos in Vegas.
BNSF does not try to run UP or CN out of business.
sell these to Sprint knowing they would be held up at customs and possibly not be able to sell them in the US?
Actually MILLIONS already entered the country and were sold by AT&T and independent retailers. Only when this phone started taking serious sales away from Apple did they start complaining.
HTC has long ago removed the offending patent item. (And Apple ultimately lost on all other claims in this particular suit.) A single item in the '694 patent was upheld, namely having a url sent in a text message be treated as a real url and launching the browser when tapped. (My ancient Razr feature phone did that - sans the tapping part).
Do you know of any publicly held companies that aren't even and bent on destroying their competition using all means available including but limited to incessant lawsuits?
You can't be serious.
The vast majority of publicly held companies go about their business without trying to kill off the competition. Doing so is a costly distraction, which seldom ever succeeds. Its far more often found that big companies form trade associations and collude than go after each other with daggers. Having competition is very useful. Not having competition simply invites regulation. That's why MacDonalds gets along with Burger King, AT&T and Verizon share tower space, Union Pacific and Burlington Pacific and Santa Fe share tracks, Bayer cross licenses with Pfizer.
Your assumption that all publicly traded companies are in a death struggle suggests a hopelessly paranoid view of corporations that seems to be in vogue today.
Did these guys have any significant technology? (Just askin, I really don't know. Even the Lightsquared Faq is fairly useless at explaining what they have that hasn't been done before)
And if they did, why not move it somewhere else to some radio spectrum where it will not interfere, such as, but not limited to some of the bandwidth Verizon is finding un-useful in the 700mhz band that they can't pawn off on anybody.
It seems to me that the only problem they had was a dependence on the wrong block of spectrum. On the other hand, any company that wants to push ahead with a spectrum usage with total disregard for existing spectrum use and the safety concerns of the entire GPS community probably isn't a company you want setting up this type of service in the first place.
They don't hit the pot hole because there are computer vision systems that, along with the range sensors, can make a reliable guess at whether that is a pot hole or not, and avoid it.
In traffic, you notice all drivers ahead moving to the edge of the lane, and then moving back. You can't see the pot hole, (dead animal, fallen load, shredded tire), but you know something is there by the way drivers in front are reacting.
Will the sensor system pick that up. Or will the pot hole suddenly appear under from the bumper of the car ahead that straddled it, forcing the computer to break hard, or make an dangerous swerve at the last instant, or will it just drive through it, and maybe lose a tire?
Nevada is a great place to test this. The roads are in very good condition, and traffic is light in rural areas. But how does it cope with heavy traffic, all of which is moving 10% above the posted limit, and all at following distances that are really too close? How soon does it anticipate a lane closure? Can it read temporary signs propped up by that afternoon work crew that say lane closed, move left?
Its clear Google can navigate down calm streets and largely vacant roads, but the suggestion that we can safely deploy driver-less vehicles in typical American traffic with zero infrastructure changes has yet to be proven.
It was in Nevada (and not near any military installation), and I'm pretty sure it was just Joe Contract Trucker.
That wasn't the first time It happened, just the first time I figured out what it was. My Garmin literally had me in North Dakota one minute, then Texas the next. It was useless. The phone simply couldn't get a fix. The Cell towers told it one thing, but the GPS signal said something totally different.
But is THIS the intersection at which it should turn, or the NEXT intersection? GPS seems to put it in another part of the continent, (because the driver of that 18-wheeler wants to visit his favorite Nevada house of ill-repute without the boss knowing).
Can it read street signs? Does it pull over and stop? Wander aimlessly? Does it cache maps and dead-recon its way thru them?
Navigation is central to transportation purpose. Collision avoidance is merely process.
If a human is on board and can take over, fine. But I get visions of unmanned delivery vehicles wandering aimlessly after the Teamster's Union buys all its members GPS jammers.
There is no need for the Government to do any such testing.
Exactly. Google is already crowd sourcing this filtration of the algorithmically selected results. They are doing this in response to spammers and page rank manipulators that scrape content or links, drape it with ads and foist it into google search results via a monstrous network of links pointing to it.
Google added the Blocked Site Feature which lets you add these sites to your personal block list. You can remove blocks either permanantly or turn off blocking temporarily for specific search sessions.
Then they algorithmically harvest everybody's block list, and potentially add those sites to another spam algorithm. Clearly if 50% of searchers add Obama's campaign site to their block list Google can't automatically block it. On the other hand, useless screen scraper sites that get blocked by.5% of searchers probably do get spam blocked. That's where the human review comes in.
Its not like the entire fing country is livid about the Supreme Court holding that corporations are people - which makes zero sense.
The overwhelming majority of the country couldn't care less. Corporate personhood is a simple concept, and it's been used for almost 200 years.
200 years?
Way too conservative.
Its been around at least since Roman times. The very word corporation essentially means "embodiment" and the concept has ancient long before the advent of the US Constitution or the Supreme Court.
Originally, corporations were granted protection only for the purposes of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal protection clause so that they could own property). Only minor tweaks have occurred over time, corporations have no 5th amendment rights, can't vote, hold office. There is no clear right to free speech either, although they can dispose of their property (money) for any legal purpose including donations to political campaigns.
Only after their algorithms detect spammers gaming the system are some tiny fraction flagged for human review. This work is farmed out to Leapforce. They have lately been crowd sourcing the spam nomination process by algorithmically mining personal block lists. This has done wonders for filtering out the content scraper sites that provide zero original information, and simply hang ads all over other people's pages.
Sites that do not employ Spammer tricks or page rank manipulation techniques never get selected for human review. The engineers have nothing to do with it. Political agenda? Please. What political topic does not appear in search results?
Further, Much of this is dictated by law. Are you suggesting Google should violate the law serve up child porn to you? Wouldn't you be one of the first in line screaming if Google ignored the laws that force them to restrict some results? You know you would.
The notion that an elected set of representatives would create a baseline secret test to check google's results is an excellent and needed one. a light weight check process could be easily designed and periodically launched to *measure* the results.
Really? Gadaffi was elected, as was Mubarak, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Jong-il,...
If you don't like Google search results go use Bing or Baidu.
In the mean time, I prefer results that are algorithmically determined based on the words I enter rather than some politicians idea of what I should be searching for.
Slashdot Mirror
The smart car has better engineering.
Looks so small you haven't even got room to put you hands up to cover your eyes, let alone wipe your breakfast off the glass.
One can only hope the canopy is made of Peril Sensitive glass, and you get the option of editing any inflight videos so your friends don't get to see you screaming like a schoolgirl.
I hope they subcontract with Depends, because you know someone's going to need them, especially since the parachute is at the bottom, and the final descent should be sufficiently terrifying that you wouldn't want anything else floating around your screaming mouth.
Getting around all the buzzwords
Well that's one hurdle.
The next is RECOVERY when ICE or FBI or some other 3letter agency walks in an takes your data because one tiny customer use the service for some allegedly nefarious purpose.
The key here is to use a service so big that even god himself would not dare take it down, although the Ayatollah might try. Small cloud services, even if multi-homed are a risky proposition. Even if you do manage to get all your data into them, they are not large enough to push back against any subpoena or search warrant that any misguided judge in some backwater jurisdiction may issue.
Those objectors did not prevail. Minority opinions never count.
Therefore there is no constitutional right to privacy.
Many Supreme Court justices and rulings would disagree with you on that point. Here's a fairly well-sourced discussion on the right of privacy.
Which begins with EXACTLY what I said above: The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.
It then goes on to list the depressingly small instances where specific privacy rights are protected.
Be careful what you cite.
Wikipedia says this:
Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws. Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Actually the deep flaw here is probably in assuming that the Tariff is actually based on the cost of China's production at all.
When you dig into the US dumping regulations you quickly find there is no requirement for any audit of costs or subsidies or anything else. It all amounts to speculation, often taking US/Western manufacturing costs as a basis, then simply substituting Chinese average wages and calling it a day.
In antidumping duty proceedings, the Department determines margins of dumping by comparing normal value with the export price of comparable merchandise.
Anti Dumping tariffs are pretty much a joke. You can game the calculation any way you want.
I would be much happier if the US simply said it is in our national interest to have a strong on-shore solar industry and leave it at that.
Instead, this administration is still smarting over the Solyndra failure and looking for someone who isn't running for re-election to take the blame.
Except that surveillance, simply having an approximate idea where you are, is not now, and never was a search. Just like having a detective follow you around is not a search.
The fundamental problem here is that the drafters of the Constitution did not foresee technology that allowed a government to invade your privacy from a distance, and it never occurred to them that invasion of privacy itself was a problem. Therefore there is no constitutional right to privacy. A huge oversight based on the era in which the document was written, where this kind of surveillance required manpower, which was always limited.
Well instead of bitching here on Slashdot, try writing (pen and paper, not email) your representative in congress and insisting they pass the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act, with no watered down provisions.
Is it really so hard to get a warrant? If you can't convince a judge, why should a email to your cell provider suffice?
Well, as the article pointed out, they are using a much finer grained control of the injection precisely to control knock, injecting fuel in up to three shorter bursts.
This also allows them to space those bursts at precise times during the power stroke, such as when the piston is going down, and the expansion of the initial burst of fuel is losing effectiveness due to combustion chamber expansion reducing the instantaneous pressure. Adding a burst of fuel at that point gets you extra power at what would otherwise be the downward (backside) of the power curve.
Previous approaches to this were attempted with variable valve actuation, (essentially getting rid of the cam shaft and using other means of controlling valves more precisely). Costly, but effective.
This approach (precisely controlling fuel delivery) allows you to shape the combustion profile to the continuously varying cylinder volume and perhaps adjusting that for changes in engine loading as well.
Wait, wait wait...moving goalpost sighted.
Giving all money away? Where did that come from? How is that possibly germane?
Corporations have far more than one goal in mind, and making money is at bes number two or three on the list.
If ALL that mattered was making money, Pfizer would stop wasting money making Viagra and start building smartphones or
opening Casinos in Vegas.
BNSF does not try to run UP or CN out of business.
Why not? If Apple's claims are quashed, Sprint sells the phones as normal. If not, HTC gets them back and refunds Sprint.
Actually, HTC has already removed the offending features.
sell these to Sprint knowing they would be held up at customs and possibly not be able to sell them in the US?
Actually MILLIONS already entered the country and were sold by AT&T and independent retailers. Only when this phone started taking
serious sales away from Apple did they start complaining.
HTC has long ago removed the offending patent item. (And Apple ultimately lost on all other claims in this particular suit.) A single item in the '694 patent was upheld, namely having a url sent in a text message be treated as a real url and launching the browser when tapped. (My ancient Razr feature phone did that - sans the tapping part).
Do you know of any publicly held companies that aren't even and bent on destroying their competition using all means available including but limited to incessant lawsuits?
You can't be serious.
The vast majority of publicly held companies go about their business without trying to kill off the competition.
Doing so is a costly distraction, which seldom ever succeeds. Its far more often found that big companies form
trade associations and collude than go after each other with daggers. Having competition is very useful.
Not having competition simply invites regulation. That's why MacDonalds gets along with Burger King,
AT&T and Verizon share tower space, Union Pacific and Burlington Pacific and Santa Fe share tracks, Bayer
cross licenses with Pfizer.
Your assumption that all publicly traded companies are in a death struggle suggests a hopelessly paranoid
view of corporations that seems to be in vogue today.
Very informative.
So my initial assessment was correct:
1) they did not have any novel new technology, (using terrestrial radio to avoid satellite hops is basic; carriers have been doing this since dirt)
2) they simply had the wrong spectrum
Come to think of it, most of my old photos from that era are pretty overexposed .....
Just buy different spectrum.
Did these guys have any significant technology? (Just askin, I really don't know. Even the Lightsquared Faq is fairly useless at explaining what they have that hasn't been done before)
And if they did, why not move it somewhere else to some radio spectrum where it will not interfere, such as, but not limited to some of the bandwidth Verizon is finding un-useful in the 700mhz band that they can't pawn off on anybody.
It seems to me that the only problem they had was a dependence on the wrong block of spectrum. On the other hand, any company that wants to push ahead with a spectrum usage with total disregard for existing spectrum use and the safety concerns of the entire GPS community probably isn't a company you want setting up this type of service in the first place.
Much as I hate to answer anyone who begins a sentence with "erm" and posts as AC, I say SHOW ME.
They don't hit the pot hole because there are computer vision systems that, along with the range sensors, can make a reliable guess at whether that is a pot hole or not, and avoid it.
In traffic, you notice all drivers ahead moving to the edge of the lane, and then moving back. You can't see the pot hole, (dead animal, fallen load, shredded tire), but you know something is there by the way drivers in front are reacting.
Will the sensor system pick that up. Or will the pot hole suddenly appear under from the bumper of the car ahead that straddled it, forcing the computer to break hard, or make an dangerous swerve at the last instant, or will it just drive through it, and maybe lose a tire?
Nevada is a great place to test this. The roads are in very good condition, and traffic is light in rural areas.
But how does it cope with heavy traffic, all of which is moving 10% above the posted limit, and all at following distances that are really too close? How soon does it anticipate a lane closure? Can it read temporary signs propped up by that afternoon work crew that say lane closed, move left?
Its clear Google can navigate down calm streets and largely vacant roads, but the suggestion that we can safely deploy driver-less vehicles in typical American traffic with zero infrastructure changes has yet to be proven.
It was in Nevada (and not near any military installation), and I'm pretty sure it was just Joe Contract Trucker.
That wasn't the first time It happened, just the first time I figured out what it was. My Garmin literally had me in North Dakota one minute, then Texas the next. It was useless. The phone simply couldn't get a fix. The Cell towers told it one thing, but the GPS signal said something totally different.
Its becoming a big problem. These units are not hard to find, and the problem is becoming fairly serious as even a cursory Google search will find:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/uk-research-measures-growing-gps-jamming-threat/
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/02/gps-jamming-a-clear-and-presen.html
http://www.jammerall.com/categories/GPS-Jammers/
But is THIS the intersection at which it should turn, or the NEXT intersection?
GPS seems to put it in another part of the continent, (because the driver of that 18-wheeler wants to visit his favorite Nevada house of ill-repute without the boss knowing).
Can it read street signs? Does it pull over and stop? Wander aimlessly? Does it cache maps and dead-recon its way thru them?
Navigation is central to transportation purpose. Collision avoidance is merely process.
If a human is on board and can take over, fine. But I get visions of unmanned delivery vehicles wandering aimlessly after the Teamster's Union buys all its members GPS jammers.
There is no need for the Government to do any such testing.
Exactly.
Google is already crowd sourcing this filtration of the algorithmically selected results. They are doing this in response to spammers and page rank manipulators that scrape content or links, drape it with ads and foist it into google search results via a monstrous network of links pointing to it.
Google added the Blocked Site Feature which lets you add these sites to your personal block list. You can remove blocks either permanantly or turn off blocking temporarily for specific search sessions.
Then they algorithmically harvest everybody's block list, and potentially add those sites to another spam algorithm. Clearly if 50% of searchers add Obama's campaign site to their block list Google can't automatically block it. On the other hand, useless screen scraper sites that get blocked by .5% of searchers probably do get spam blocked. That's where the human review comes in.
On your Google.com Blocking preferences page: https://www.google.com/reviews/t page it clearly states
Sites will be blocked only for you, but Google may use everyone's blocking information to improve the ranking of search results overall.
I block all the useless site scrapers I can find.
Its not like the entire fing country is livid about the Supreme Court holding that corporations are people - which makes zero sense.
The overwhelming majority of the country couldn't care less. Corporate personhood is a simple concept, and it's been used for almost 200 years.
200 years?
Way too conservative.
Its been around at least since Roman times. The very word corporation essentially means "embodiment" and the concept has ancient long before the advent of the US Constitution or the Supreme Court.
Originally, corporations were granted protection only for the purposes of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal protection clause so that they could own property). Only minor tweaks have occurred over time, corporations have no 5th amendment rights, can't vote, hold office. There is no clear right to free speech either, although they can dispose of their property (money) for any legal purpose including donations to political campaigns.
Google results are algorithmically determined.
Only after their algorithms detect spammers gaming the system are some tiny fraction flagged for human review. This work is farmed out to Leapforce. They have lately been crowd sourcing the spam nomination process by algorithmically mining personal block lists. This has done wonders for filtering out the content scraper sites that provide zero original information, and simply hang ads all over other people's pages.
Sites that do not employ Spammer tricks or page rank manipulation techniques never get selected for human review. The engineers have nothing to do with it. Political agenda? Please. What political topic does not appear in search results?
Further, Much of this is dictated by law. Are you suggesting Google should violate the law serve up child porn to you? Wouldn't you be one of the first in line screaming if Google ignored the laws that force them to restrict some results? You know you would.
The notion that an elected set of representatives would create a baseline secret test to check google's results is an excellent and needed one. a light weight check process could be easily designed and periodically launched to *measure* the results.
Really? ...
Gadaffi was elected, as was Mubarak, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Jong-il,
If you don't like Google search results go use Bing or Baidu.
In the mean time, I prefer results that are algorithmically determined based on the words I enter rather than some politicians idea of what I should be searching for.