And I find it hilarious that everyone here states that programmers and engineers work without requirements or documentation. I've worked places where the verbal meeting would have the engineer agreeing with everything, then when it's not written in the requirements document and signed off by 10+ people, it doesn't get built. Seems like all the programmers on Slashdot have never worked in a company larger than 10 people.
It's easy to get them on record. You send them an email asking for confirmation of the act. If they send back something saying "don't do it" you don't do it and use that when the top brass gets mad. If they don't reply, or tell you to do it, you've got your get out of jail confirmation.
The times I've been asked to do something explicitly illegal, I got written confirmation from the order. There was no issue getting it, and no issue when it was found out (only once of the few illegal orders I've ever gotten).
But it's not "required" that there be any IR light for the camera to work
You are deliberately being obtuse. Yes, it's 100% required that cameras accept IR and record it. If not, then they won't work. Period. Though by "work" you mean won't do one specific thing, and by "work" I mean do everything listed in the manual. If it doesn't do what the manual says it will, then it's broken. If you bought a car with no rear door handles, would you take it back as defective? After all, you don't need them to get in the drivers seat and drive away, so the dealer should tell you to fuck off, as the car works fine. (just not all the items in the manual, and you indicate that's irrelevant to the definition of "work".
That why I initially thought of the spots, like the OP, but then thought that a pulsing action at a ~1s period would probably make for a worse viewing experience, with the picture fading in and out as the automatic brightness controls in the camera tried to adjust.
And then, they could pulse them in a manner that would indicate the theater and showtime, so any screeners would fully identify the recorded time and place.
The camera doesn't have a "poor" IR filter, it deliberately looks into the IR spectrum because that's required for some operations. Because that's required, it's "required" that the camera see in IR.
Rather than having filters and processing, they let it all in, and visible light dominates when it's available, but when it's not, the IR receptors dominate. They work in the absence of IR and the absence of visible light. But both are required for all features.
Some like to watch the cams to see if the movie is worth watching in the first place. Is the story and acting good? Or is it a worthless movie with lots of pretty pretty advertisements.
By "rely on" he could mean "rely on". Most cameras have a night-vision or low-light capability that relies on non-visible spectrum. Since the camera relies on IR/UV, then one could say it "relies on" it.
That was my fault as well, but I was thinking they should pulse them, with a frequency close to the response time of the cameras (if they are close enough to do something like this), so the camera fades in and out, like a copy of a Macrovision VHS.0
Foreign Affairs: Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
One of the only things he's remembered for is nation building, interventionist policies that invaded Iraq for fabricated reasons.
So no, Bush didn't promise Hope and Change. But he didn't deliver on any of his promises, rarely do candidates.
But if they have a plan to invest in tech that's 2 years out, it makes sense for them to save up. And if they save up, it makes sense to get a god return on the savings while they wait.
In an "ideal" market (one that doesn't exist), they should have a stock buy-back with the excess, increasing your share value, then, two years from now, issue more stock (diluting yours) to raise capital for the purchase. It's essentially an investment in themselves for those 2 years. Would that be better for you? Because they have to raise capital some way.
Valve Ubered Gamestop and EB Games. They tried to play nicer, and so didn't make as big of a fuss about it, but I don't think anyone can cut them out, as they add some value (stored libraries and the like) at a minimal markup.
I walked out of a Toyota dealership when I was young. Had a good first job, and was trying to buy an MR2 Turbo. The Gulf States Toyota adds on distributor markup, and distributor features, like "underbody coating" (claiming it's needed on all cars, as the "gulf states" is coastal, and could be exposed to salt air. I lived 200+ miles inland. The wheels were worse than stock, and expensive, and shit like that. I walked out. Looked at buying used, but ended up with a different car.
Why buy $5000 of stuff you don't want, just to get something you do? Oh yeah, monopoly. Good thing there are exclusive distributorships to prevent us from being abused by manufacturers.
Of which individual medallion holders are all members. Now, it's a government monopoly, self-regulated in coordination with all the medallion holders, but there is a single authority and a single set of all rules under which all operate. A monopoly. You are licensed by the TLC, or you don't operate. Uber tried to break that monopoly, and that's why there was an issue.
The issue is that monopolies like taxis get so focused on profits or whatever, that they forget they only get income from customers. With no competition, why should I treat my customers well?
Also most companies are middle-men, so finding a way to cut out the middle man for a middle man company doesn't seem to make sense. Gas stations sell you fuel someone else refined, that someone else dug up. They "add value" in the middle, but are all middle men. So "Ubering" in the sense of more directly connecting the customer to the service or product is the opposite of the goal of most companies. Personally, I'd love it if the manufacturers were to make their products available directly. Order monthly subscriptions to Coca Cola and get what you want delivered directly to your house monthly. For a price near the wholesale price for the store. That's the ideal. Any store marking up 50% or 500% will never compete with that. But it doesn't happen.
That's where Ubering comes in. When a company sees a need, and refuses to meet it.
Right now, adaptive cruise and auto-park are only on the bigger more expensive cars. Making a great little city car with the bells and whistles would kill in sales.
I think they should go electric-hybrid-plug-in. Electric for 99% of use, and for longer trips, you get a 20 lb propane tank and hook it up. Refill the propane tank every 300 miles or so, and you'd have the range and capacity of a gasoline car in a little electric that rarely needs the propane-powered generator that fills the batteries. Propane is already universal, even if not popular everywhere, and slight work on the logistics, and you might even work out a plan to rent the generator and tank, so your daily drive doesn't have you hauling around an IC engine and fuel tank with fuel. And for a trip, you put in the rental generator and tank.
Propane swaps are common and easy, so "refill" your car faster than gasoline (the golden standard), by swapping an empty tank for a full one, rather than filling the empty one.
When you have a non-car company thinking up solutions, you'll get lots of solutions that the GM CEO would say "can't work", but that's code for "I'd have never thought of that", and isn't related to the viability.
What's hard about it? Designing? Building? Supporting? Apple doesn't do 2 of those for things it's "expert" at, so why would it for cars? Build them in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would all love to make the iCar. And some of those have lots of experience. So then it's design, sales and support. A dealership network would be fine for sales and support, so it's just to Apple to design something. And that's what they are good at, or so I'm told.
And that's what they *should* do if they have more capital than they can deploy intelligently, because otherwise that portion of the shareholder's value is just sitting there undeployed.
I worked for a big company. They had $10B in cash. Their $10B in cash was invested. In a good investment year, the "profit" from the "undeployed" cash was greater than the rest of the company combined. They don't have the cash stuffed under their mattress (corporations don't sleep). But it's invested. And it's growing. I'm too lazy to look up their FTC filings, but I'm sure you can find it if you want to look it up and see what the investments returned.
OK, so in the '80s, my old Chrysler LeBaron (hand me down, don't ask) was a complete piece of shit. It got to the point where the repairs to keep it running (but with issues like always leaving the windows down because they didn't go up, and if you put them up, you couldn't get in the car from the broken handles) were more than a new car payment. We traded it in for $1 on a new '87 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais. The police later called us to collect our car. The people who bought it off the dealer (we presume) ended up abandoning it on the side of the road (maybe the dealer gave it to a friend's kid or something). The Calais ended up scrapped when a transmission failure wasn't covered under warranty, and would have cost more than the car was worth at that point. But we got a free re-paint out of it. It had the GM peeling paint of the '80s.
take care of your stuff and it will last
Like the BMW 320 I saw in the shop. About 150000 miles. Probably never had an oil change. The oil was like bubble gum. Still ran. But was starting to have issues. A cheap rebuild later, and good as new. Rebuilt the heads, and flushed the rest.
Hyundai got started for a lot less than that. For the projected losses, Apple could buy GM, take the best 1% from GM, then shut down GM, writing off the whole thing, and still end up ahead. The sentiment is wrong, the math is wrong, and the reality is wrong. He's just proven that even idiots can make millions as a CEO.
And yes, I know many don't like Hyundai, but from their bad start with the Elantra in the US, they've improved to be better than GM at this point (from a satisfaction and quality standard).
Slashdot Mirror
When payment is involved, I've only ever seen it happen with change requests, well documented. But then, I've managed to avoid government work.
And I find it hilarious that everyone here states that programmers and engineers work without requirements or documentation. I've worked places where the verbal meeting would have the engineer agreeing with everything, then when it's not written in the requirements document and signed off by 10+ people, it doesn't get built. Seems like all the programmers on Slashdot have never worked in a company larger than 10 people.
It's easy to get them on record. You send them an email asking for confirmation of the act. If they send back something saying "don't do it" you don't do it and use that when the top brass gets mad. If they don't reply, or tell you to do it, you've got your get out of jail confirmation.
The times I've been asked to do something explicitly illegal, I got written confirmation from the order. There was no issue getting it, and no issue when it was found out (only once of the few illegal orders I've ever gotten).
But it's not "required" that there be any IR light for the camera to work
You are deliberately being obtuse. Yes, it's 100% required that cameras accept IR and record it. If not, then they won't work. Period. Though by "work" you mean won't do one specific thing, and by "work" I mean do everything listed in the manual. If it doesn't do what the manual says it will, then it's broken. If you bought a car with no rear door handles, would you take it back as defective? After all, you don't need them to get in the drivers seat and drive away, so the dealer should tell you to fuck off, as the car works fine. (just not all the items in the manual, and you indicate that's irrelevant to the definition of "work".
That why I initially thought of the spots, like the OP, but then thought that a pulsing action at a ~1s period would probably make for a worse viewing experience, with the picture fading in and out as the automatic brightness controls in the camera tried to adjust.
And then, they could pulse them in a manner that would indicate the theater and showtime, so any screeners would fully identify the recorded time and place.
And the provable loss is the tremendous drop in the car's resale value.
So what is that drop? Nobody has asserted a number yet, let alone backed it up with verification of any kind.
The camera doesn't have a "poor" IR filter, it deliberately looks into the IR spectrum because that's required for some operations. Because that's required, it's "required" that the camera see in IR.
Rather than having filters and processing, they let it all in, and visible light dominates when it's available, but when it's not, the IR receptors dominate. They work in the absence of IR and the absence of visible light. But both are required for all features.
Some like to watch the cams to see if the movie is worth watching in the first place. Is the story and acting good? Or is it a worthless movie with lots of pretty pretty advertisements.
By "rely on" he could mean "rely on". Most cameras have a night-vision or low-light capability that relies on non-visible spectrum. Since the camera relies on IR/UV, then one could say it "relies on" it.
That was my fault as well, but I was thinking they should pulse them, with a frequency close to the response time of the cameras (if they are close enough to do something like this), so the camera fades in and out, like a copy of a Macrovision VHS.0
Foreign Affairs: Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
One of the only things he's remembered for is nation building, interventionist policies that invaded Iraq for fabricated reasons.
So no, Bush didn't promise Hope and Change. But he didn't deliver on any of his promises, rarely do candidates.
But if they have a plan to invest in tech that's 2 years out, it makes sense for them to save up. And if they save up, it makes sense to get a god return on the savings while they wait.
In an "ideal" market (one that doesn't exist), they should have a stock buy-back with the excess, increasing your share value, then, two years from now, issue more stock (diluting yours) to raise capital for the purchase. It's essentially an investment in themselves for those 2 years. Would that be better for you? Because they have to raise capital some way.
Valve Ubered Gamestop and EB Games. They tried to play nicer, and so didn't make as big of a fuss about it, but I don't think anyone can cut them out, as they add some value (stored libraries and the like) at a minimal markup.
I walked out of a Toyota dealership when I was young. Had a good first job, and was trying to buy an MR2 Turbo. The Gulf States Toyota adds on distributor markup, and distributor features, like "underbody coating" (claiming it's needed on all cars, as the "gulf states" is coastal, and could be exposed to salt air. I lived 200+ miles inland. The wheels were worse than stock, and expensive, and shit like that. I walked out. Looked at buying used, but ended up with a different car.
Why buy $5000 of stuff you don't want, just to get something you do? Oh yeah, monopoly. Good thing there are exclusive distributorships to prevent us from being abused by manufacturers.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc
Of which individual medallion holders are all members. Now, it's a government monopoly, self-regulated in coordination with all the medallion holders, but there is a single authority and a single set of all rules under which all operate. A monopoly. You are licensed by the TLC, or you don't operate. Uber tried to break that monopoly, and that's why there was an issue.
http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-... I see no restrictions that agree with your statement.
The cost of imported cars isn't in the shipping, but in the protective laws. It'd help to lecture someone on their errors if you actually had a clue.
The issue is that monopolies like taxis get so focused on profits or whatever, that they forget they only get income from customers. With no competition, why should I treat my customers well?
Also most companies are middle-men, so finding a way to cut out the middle man for a middle man company doesn't seem to make sense. Gas stations sell you fuel someone else refined, that someone else dug up. They "add value" in the middle, but are all middle men. So "Ubering" in the sense of more directly connecting the customer to the service or product is the opposite of the goal of most companies. Personally, I'd love it if the manufacturers were to make their products available directly. Order monthly subscriptions to Coca Cola and get what you want delivered directly to your house monthly. For a price near the wholesale price for the store. That's the ideal. Any store marking up 50% or 500% will never compete with that. But it doesn't happen.
That's where Ubering comes in. When a company sees a need, and refuses to meet it.
Don't be dicks, and you won't get Ubered.
I think you are right.
Right now, adaptive cruise and auto-park are only on the bigger more expensive cars. Making a great little city car with the bells and whistles would kill in sales.
I think they should go electric-hybrid-plug-in. Electric for 99% of use, and for longer trips, you get a 20 lb propane tank and hook it up. Refill the propane tank every 300 miles or so, and you'd have the range and capacity of a gasoline car in a little electric that rarely needs the propane-powered generator that fills the batteries. Propane is already universal, even if not popular everywhere, and slight work on the logistics, and you might even work out a plan to rent the generator and tank, so your daily drive doesn't have you hauling around an IC engine and fuel tank with fuel. And for a trip, you put in the rental generator and tank.
Propane swaps are common and easy, so "refill" your car faster than gasoline (the golden standard), by swapping an empty tank for a full one, rather than filling the empty one.
When you have a non-car company thinking up solutions, you'll get lots of solutions that the GM CEO would say "can't work", but that's code for "I'd have never thought of that", and isn't related to the viability.
What's hard about it? Designing? Building? Supporting? Apple doesn't do 2 of those for things it's "expert" at, so why would it for cars? Build them in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would all love to make the iCar. And some of those have lots of experience. So then it's design, sales and support. A dealership network would be fine for sales and support, so it's just to Apple to design something. And that's what they are good at, or so I'm told.
And that's what they *should* do if they have more capital than they can deploy intelligently, because otherwise that portion of the shareholder's value is just sitting there undeployed.
I worked for a big company. They had $10B in cash. Their $10B in cash was invested. In a good investment year, the "profit" from the "undeployed" cash was greater than the rest of the company combined. They don't have the cash stuffed under their mattress (corporations don't sleep). But it's invested. And it's growing. I'm too lazy to look up their FTC filings, but I'm sure you can find it if you want to look it up and see what the investments returned.
that old lie still around?
Was it ever true?
cars from the 80s Id agree with you
OK, so in the '80s, my old Chrysler LeBaron (hand me down, don't ask) was a complete piece of shit. It got to the point where the repairs to keep it running (but with issues like always leaving the windows down because they didn't go up, and if you put them up, you couldn't get in the car from the broken handles) were more than a new car payment. We traded it in for $1 on a new '87 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais. The police later called us to collect our car. The people who bought it off the dealer (we presume) ended up abandoning it on the side of the road (maybe the dealer gave it to a friend's kid or something). The Calais ended up scrapped when a transmission failure wasn't covered under warranty, and would have cost more than the car was worth at that point. But we got a free re-paint out of it. It had the GM peeling paint of the '80s.
take care of your stuff and it will last
Like the BMW 320 I saw in the shop. About 150000 miles. Probably never had an oil change. The oil was like bubble gum. Still ran. But was starting to have issues. A cheap rebuild later, and good as new. Rebuilt the heads, and flushed the rest.
That would only be true if the electric offerings from others would have been the same without him. Most don't subscribe to that opinion.
Hyundai got started for a lot less than that. For the projected losses, Apple could buy GM, take the best 1% from GM, then shut down GM, writing off the whole thing, and still end up ahead. The sentiment is wrong, the math is wrong, and the reality is wrong. He's just proven that even idiots can make millions as a CEO.
And yes, I know many don't like Hyundai, but from their bad start with the Elantra in the US, they've improved to be better than GM at this point (from a satisfaction and quality standard).