Sure insurance prices go up, but in a controlled way. Drivers shouldn't be expected to pay for bungs in software. One year you are paying $1000, and then a trailer crossing the road event happens and the next year you are paying $2500? How can anyone budget that way
The driver is the owner of the car. Tesla is not going to agree to any insurance setup where they are on the hook in perpetuity for a vehicle they only get to profit from once. So ether the owner pays for the insurance, or the owner only gets to lease their vehicle, and you'll see that lease rate adjust with the insurance rating -- either way, the driver will be paying something on an ongoing basis because of the insurance.
The driver decided to buy the car, and had control over the make and model choice. Just like right now, people use the potential insurance costs of a vehicle in their purchasing decisions (at least the smart ones do). As far as "budgeting for insurance" people have the same lack of control right now on that front. If you get in an accident in your Toyota Camry your insurance rates will increase if it's your fault. There is nothing you can do to avoid that risk -- it's called an accident for a reason. So I really don't see how you think the car being self-driving is some new change to that paradigm.
I don't see anyone putting a gun to your head and making you buy a self-driving car. If you think they are so buggy -- don't buy one.
Also: LOL -- Insurance increasing from $1000 to $2500 from one accident? Hyperbole much?
That's the great thing about Wikipedia, if you think the "Simple English" version of this article is not simple enough, you're free to edit it and correct this issue.
Keep in mind there are concepts that cannot necessarily be reduced to levels that can be expressed in a Simple English article.
That will improve communication in international development teams -- not having a common language to speak to each other in. I'm sure that will have no impact on the final product.
That's fine, as long as Sally Smith doesn't personally have to pay more because her automated car didn't see a cyclist one day when the sun was shining a certain way. Everyone should pay equally.
Everyone running the specific version of the software would pay equally is my thinking. That also means that accidents for other vehicles running the same software might impact your rates -- which would only be correct, because the same "person" is operating all these vehicles. The behavior of those other cars would give insights into the abilities of the autodrive software that were not observable in your car because you had not been in the same exact situation (yet).
They might take the car the software is on into account, too. Firmware 1 might do a better job driving vehicle model A than vehicle model B due to different performance and handling characteristics of the hardware (vehicle), causing different rates there.
This is actually how our current insurance works already, btw. Your insurance rates are not based solely on your own personal behavior, but take into account things like your age and the behaviors of other drivers in your age range and with similar vehicles as you drive.
The only way to accomplish that is to make it part of the cost of the car, which means no personal insurance anyway.
LOL. Keep dreamn', bud. There will never be insurance that is part of the cost of the car. First of all, because the car is a one-time purchase, and the length of ownership can vary widely, how would they know how long you would need coverage for when you bought it? Secondly, if it was a monthly/bi-annually/yearly charge, you're just going to see the same thing -- there would be adjustments made to the price to account for inflation at least, if not other things.
Otherwise you get a situation where ten thousand people have fluctuating insurance rates depending on what bugs were found that month in terms of accidents.
Again, that is no different than the insurance system we have now. Insurance rates are adjusted constantly in relation to new information about the way people drive individually and as an average across a larger group. The difference is most people don't buy their insurance a month at a time. Even if they are paying for it in installments, the policy term is six months to a year long. So it's only going to get a adjusted when you buy a new term.
Do you even have insurance? You sound like someone who's never looked at insurance bills over a period of time. Following through a period of 20 years and three insurance companies, my bill has been slightly different every time I get my renewal paperwork. It's generally gone down (as I'm no longer a 17 year old punk and grew up into a lower risk bracket), but sometimes it went up even if I made no claims, had no accidents, and didn't change cars -- because the risk assessment for my group at that time has been revised due to data from other people.
I don't know... the new update wouldn't have any track record.
True, but it could start at the same insurance rating as the previous version and be adjusted as the data is collected and a more unique risk profile is developed.
The practice of charging a driver according to their past driving history no longer has any logic.
How do you figure that? The insurance company can simply track the accident stats for the specific software, and version of it, over all vehicles running it -- i.e. "Tesla Firmware 17.36.1b27c6d" = one "driver". Then set rates accordingly. That would give far more driving historical data than tracking a single human that would mainly be limited to a specific geographic area.
An interesting side effect is people might see a change in their insurance rates if they update their car's software.
The service is designed to provide automated employment and income verification for prospective employers, and tens of thousands of companies report employee salary data to it.
What business is it of a potential employer what I was paid by my previous employers? All that does is weaken the applicant's position when it comes time to negotiate a starting salary.
These feature removals mostly seem troublesome at a locked down PC environment at school or work where you can't install anything. So while not disastrous, it is certainly annoying when you can't do some trivial thing on a computer without admin rights on it.
If the admin wants people playing videos on the machine, wouldn't they just add a video player as part of the standard workstation image? If anything, it makes things easier if the administrators don't have to go through and proactively remove a bunch of shovelware from a fresh OS install.
Shouldn't it be more like "Help! I've fallen and I can't stop floating!"
Mars has gravity -- at an acceleration rate of 3.711 meters per second squared, compare that to 9.8 m/s squared on Earth. So you will still fall down on Mars. Thanks for playing, though.
Presumably they'll go from supporting Windows 10,8,7 instead of 10,8,7,Vista,XP and retire their Vista and XP test systems. XP has about 5.69% market share right now, about the same as Windows 8.1.
I was originally going to buy a Z3 Compact, even though it was already a few years old, because of the great battery life I'd heard about. Coming from a phone I'd changed batteries in twice in, the pretty-much non-replaceable battery was a concern for me, too. The main issue I had was I could only buy the Z3c through grey-market sellers in China at that point.
Meanwhile, the X Compact went on sale, and while it was $90 more and didn't have as good a battery endurance rating, it was a current-lineup handset (so would be supported software-wise much longer), had a newer camera, faster processor, and a U.S. warranty.
The new XZ1 Compact is a return to the "small flagship" handset specs-wise that your Z5c is, and it has a higher battery endurance rating then even the old Z3c.
Were you around back then? It was "voluntary", however not really. Auto dealers were destroying cars right and left under that program. That is what was required.
Used car dealers destroying inventory != low-income car owners suddenly being told to hand in their keys. You can still buy cars in private sale last time I checked -- which is every time I've bought a car, except for my current vehicle. Thanks for the red herring, though. I love fish.
We also had no say in it, the Dems just did it.
Ah, ah, ah. That's not how a Representative Democracy works. The people in Congress are there to represent the will of the people. If Congress is a majority Democrat institution at that time, then that would only signal that the views of the nation are more closely aligned with the Democratic ideals, and since the nation is ruled on votes that count for the majority, that would mean the fact this program passed -- through both houses, means that it is what the nation's citizens as a whole wanted.
The view held by the minority of Congress is just that -- the minority opinion. So if you're trying to express some viewpoint that the government system was "rigged" and people were not having their views represented in the way that is correct when the Cash for Clunkers Program was enacted, I would have to ask, doesn't that invalidate the results of the last election, and the current legislative makeup as well? It was also decided by this system you seem to be implying is flawed.
If you're not carrying some chip on your shoulder over Sony, unlike many people here, you might check out their phones.
The Xperias are still getting OS upgrades a few years later, not just security patches. My own handset is only about a year old from its own introduction, but it's been upgraded from 6.0.1 -> 7.0 -> 7.1, and is supposed to be getting an upgrade to Oreo in the future. It has a microSD card slot, a headphone jack, supports 192 khz/24 bit audio, Apt-X lossless bluetooth audio, and mine at least (Xperia Compact X) isn't stupidly slim, so it gets good battery life. I'm probably a bad example of phone usage, but I only charge it once every four days.
You can't learn about terrorism without reading about it. Not reading about it leaves you ignorant. Being ignorant removes the tools for combating it.
Well, you're not supposed to research it on your own. Listening to alternative political viewpoints and being able to form your opinions on your own is the greatest evil. Just stay away from those websites and wait for government approved educational materials to inform you about terrorism, and how you should feel about it.
Microsoft announced today that it will soon shutter both its Groove Music Pass streaming service and the ability to purchase songs and albums in the Windows Store.... Microsoft has partnered with Spotify to move all its Groove Music Pass customers over to Spotify.
So what happens to all the songs people have already purchased through the service? Spotify is a streaming service, so obviously people will no longer have the ability to download those tracks they "bought". What's more, it's a subscription streaming service, so once their subscription expires they will lose the ability to stream those songs they supposedly "bought" before. Were they sold in a non-DRM encumbered format so they can keep playing their previous purchases they already downloaded?
They did that before. Cash for clunkers, it was really debt and despair for millions, courtesy of Obummer. They took a whole class of cars off the road and it really hit minorities the worst.
The federal program known as the Car Allowance Rebate System was a voluntary program. Nobody was forced to give up their perfectly functioning older cars, as the (crap) summary implies might happen here. But please, don't let me get in the way of your "Thanks, Obama" meme moment.
I think deep down he's haunted by fact that Apple - which had been so vanquished MSFT was loaning Apple money just to keep them afloat in 1998 as a antitrust argument...
This idea Microsoft had to "save" Apple once upon a time is one of the oldest in the book. I've heard some people go as far as to claim that Microsoft bought Apple. They didn't loan Apple any money, as you state. They purchased $150 million in stock, and it was non-voting shares at that. This on a company with a market cap (at that time) or 2.3 billion, to put into perspective the size of this investment really. Also, the share purchase was part of a lawsuit settlement, not Microsoft being nice.
The stock was all sold by 2003, and Microsoft made a decent profit on their investment -- the end.
He has been out of the company as its head for some time now. Are people really expecting him to clutch to a an unsupported mobile platform like a drowning man in the sea because he's too proud to admit his former company made a bomb? I think he's a little more practical then that. Not being indoctrinated into the Kool-Aid Klub, the choice of where to go is obvious.
After all the talk about "America First". Trump is definitely not making that happen. Whether it's because he doesn't know how to work the political scene, or he doesn't care when it comes to major corporations (even declining ones), it isn't happening.
Only an idiot would think Trump was going to do anything so grand about unemployment to start with. He's the President, not the king he believes himself to be, and the "hometown employment issues" are caused by several factors, not all of which he has the power do anything about.
Environmental issues and advances in technology are putting the coal miners out of work. Trump cant stop tech progress, and he's not able to convince everyone Global Warming isn't a thing.
Manufacturing? That's been going away so long it's too late to stop it now. When the factories are already mothballed the cost to get them started again is too high. Plus, some of that is NAFTA, and since NAFTA is a treaty, Trump has zero authority to just stop it.
Jobs being lost to automation? Again, Trump can't stop progress. The H1B program and enforcing documentation requirements for employment to reduce illegal immigrants taking jobs are perhaps the only things he could really do anything about, but that requires the cooperation of a bunch of other people who may be on the cut to look the other way, and a lot of people (who are better at business than Trump) to agree with his views, and they don't because they're looking out for their own bottom line.
"I'm going to bring back the jobs" was just mouth-service to get the Uneducated Vote, and it worked.
The ban on internal-combustion engine automobiles would be at least 10 years away, and it's unclear at this early stage if it would ban only sales and use of new cars, or ban existing cars as well.
What sensationalist tripe. What are they going to do, strand millions of lower-income people who can't afford to replace their $2000 clunker with a $30,000 new car?
To install an antenna on a tall pole/tower there is many times a rule that the tower must be able to fall over in any direction and still be on your property. So unless you have your home on a large lot that might restrict how tall you can go.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure insurance prices go up, but in a controlled way. Drivers shouldn't be expected to pay for bungs in software. One year you are paying $1000, and then a trailer crossing the road event happens and the next year you are paying $2500? How can anyone budget that way
The driver is the owner of the car. Tesla is not going to agree to any insurance setup where they are on the hook in perpetuity for a vehicle they only get to profit from once. So ether the owner pays for the insurance, or the owner only gets to lease their vehicle, and you'll see that lease rate adjust with the insurance rating -- either way, the driver will be paying something on an ongoing basis because of the insurance.
The driver decided to buy the car, and had control over the make and model choice. Just like right now, people use the potential insurance costs of a vehicle in their purchasing decisions (at least the smart ones do). As far as "budgeting for insurance" people have the same lack of control right now on that front. If you get in an accident in your Toyota Camry your insurance rates will increase if it's your fault. There is nothing you can do to avoid that risk -- it's called an accident for a reason. So I really don't see how you think the car being self-driving is some new change to that paradigm.
I don't see anyone putting a gun to your head and making you buy a self-driving car. If you think they are so buggy -- don't buy one.
Also: LOL -- Insurance increasing from $1000 to $2500 from one accident? Hyperbole much?
That's the great thing about Wikipedia, if you think the "Simple English" version of this article is not simple enough, you're free to edit it and correct this issue.
Keep in mind there are concepts that cannot necessarily be reduced to levels that can be expressed in a Simple English article.
That will improve communication in international development teams -- not having a common language to speak to each other in. I'm sure that will have no impact on the final product.
That's fine, as long as Sally Smith doesn't personally have to pay more because her automated car didn't see a cyclist one day when the sun was shining a certain way. Everyone should pay equally.
Everyone running the specific version of the software would pay equally is my thinking. That also means that accidents for other vehicles running the same software might impact your rates -- which would only be correct, because the same "person" is operating all these vehicles. The behavior of those other cars would give insights into the abilities of the autodrive software that were not observable in your car because you had not been in the same exact situation (yet).
They might take the car the software is on into account, too. Firmware 1 might do a better job driving vehicle model A than vehicle model B due to different performance and handling characteristics of the hardware (vehicle), causing different rates there.
This is actually how our current insurance works already, btw. Your insurance rates are not based solely on your own personal behavior, but take into account things like your age and the behaviors of other drivers in your age range and with similar vehicles as you drive.
The only way to accomplish that is to make it part of the cost of the car, which means no personal insurance anyway.
LOL. Keep dreamn', bud. There will never be insurance that is part of the cost of the car. First of all, because the car is a one-time purchase, and the length of ownership can vary widely, how would they know how long you would need coverage for when you bought it? Secondly, if it was a monthly/bi-annually/yearly charge, you're just going to see the same thing -- there would be adjustments made to the price to account for inflation at least, if not other things.
Otherwise you get a situation where ten thousand people have fluctuating insurance rates depending on what bugs were found that month in terms of accidents.
Again, that is no different than the insurance system we have now. Insurance rates are adjusted constantly in relation to new information about the way people drive individually and as an average across a larger group. The difference is most people don't buy their insurance a month at a time. Even if they are paying for it in installments, the policy term is six months to a year long. So it's only going to get a adjusted when you buy a new term.
Do you even have insurance? You sound like someone who's never looked at insurance bills over a period of time. Following through a period of 20 years and three insurance companies, my bill has been slightly different every time I get my renewal paperwork. It's generally gone down (as I'm no longer a 17 year old punk and grew up into a lower risk bracket), but sometimes it went up even if I made no claims, had no accidents, and didn't change cars -- because the risk assessment for my group at that time has been revised due to data from other people.
I don't know ... the new update wouldn't have any track record.
True, but it could start at the same insurance rating as the previous version and be adjusted as the data is collected and a more unique risk profile is developed.
The practice of charging a driver according to their past driving history no longer has any logic.
How do you figure that? The insurance company can simply track the accident stats for the specific software, and version of it, over all vehicles running it -- i.e. "Tesla Firmware 17.36.1b27c6d" = one "driver". Then set rates accordingly. That would give far more driving historical data than tracking a single human that would mainly be limited to a specific geographic area.
An interesting side effect is people might see a change in their insurance rates if they update their car's software.
What business is it of a potential employer what I was paid by my previous employers? All that does is weaken the applicant's position when it comes time to negotiate a starting salary.
These feature removals mostly seem troublesome at a locked down PC environment at school or work where you can't install anything. So while not disastrous, it is certainly annoying when you can't do some trivial thing on a computer without admin rights on it.
If the admin wants people playing videos on the machine, wouldn't they just add a video player as part of the standard workstation image? If anything, it makes things easier if the administrators don't have to go through and proactively remove a bunch of shovelware from a fresh OS install.
(see title)
Shouldn't it be more like "Help! I've fallen and I can't stop floating!"
Mars has gravity -- at an acceleration rate of 3.711 meters per second squared, compare that to 9.8 m/s squared on Earth. So you will still fall down on Mars. Thanks for playing, though.
They must have made sure the batteries were not made in China before airing their report.
Is that an Android Oreo thing? Because I'm on 7.1 and the wi-fi/bluetooth settings work "normally".
Methinks there are some people here with a device-maker UI change and mistaking it for standard Andriod behavior.
Presumably they'll go from supporting Windows 10,8,7 instead of 10,8,7,Vista,XP and retire their Vista and XP test systems. XP has about 5.69% market share right now, about the same as Windows 8.1.
https://www.netmarketshare.com...
Using that logic and your source, Mozilla should also stop supporting Linux and OSX. :-P
I was originally going to buy a Z3 Compact, even though it was already a few years old, because of the great battery life I'd heard about. Coming from a phone I'd changed batteries in twice in, the pretty-much non-replaceable battery was a concern for me, too. The main issue I had was I could only buy the Z3c through grey-market sellers in China at that point.
Meanwhile, the X Compact went on sale, and while it was $90 more and didn't have as good a battery endurance rating, it was a current-lineup handset (so would be supported software-wise much longer), had a newer camera, faster processor, and a U.S. warranty.
The new XZ1 Compact is a return to the "small flagship" handset specs-wise that your Z5c is, and it has a higher battery endurance rating then even the old Z3c.
Were you around back then? It was "voluntary", however not really. Auto dealers were destroying cars right and left under that program. That is what was required.
Used car dealers destroying inventory != low-income car owners suddenly being told to hand in their keys. You can still buy cars in private sale last time I checked -- which is every time I've bought a car, except for my current vehicle. Thanks for the red herring, though. I love fish.
We also had no say in it, the Dems just did it.
Ah, ah, ah. That's not how a Representative Democracy works. The people in Congress are there to represent the will of the people. If Congress is a majority Democrat institution at that time, then that would only signal that the views of the nation are more closely aligned with the Democratic ideals, and since the nation is ruled on votes that count for the majority, that would mean the fact this program passed -- through both houses, means that it is what the nation's citizens as a whole wanted.
The view held by the minority of Congress is just that -- the minority opinion. So if you're trying to express some viewpoint that the government system was "rigged" and people were not having their views represented in the way that is correct when the Cash for Clunkers Program was enacted, I would have to ask, doesn't that invalidate the results of the last election, and the current legislative makeup as well? It was also decided by this system you seem to be implying is flawed.
If you're not carrying some chip on your shoulder over Sony, unlike many people here, you might check out their phones.
The Xperias are still getting OS upgrades a few years later, not just security patches. My own handset is only about a year old from its own introduction, but it's been upgraded from 6.0.1 -> 7.0 -> 7.1, and is supposed to be getting an upgrade to Oreo in the future. It has a microSD card slot, a headphone jack, supports 192 khz/24 bit audio, Apt-X lossless bluetooth audio, and mine at least (Xperia Compact X) isn't stupidly slim, so it gets good battery life. I'm probably a bad example of phone usage, but I only charge it once every four days.
Why not? You can patent something without being the first to invent it.
You can't learn about terrorism without reading about it. Not reading about it leaves you ignorant. Being ignorant removes the tools for combating it.
Well, you're not supposed to research it on your own. Listening to alternative political viewpoints and being able to form your opinions on your own is the greatest evil. Just stay away from those websites and wait for government approved educational materials to inform you about terrorism, and how you should feel about it.
So what happens to all the songs people have already purchased through the service? Spotify is a streaming service, so obviously people will no longer have the ability to download those tracks they "bought". What's more, it's a subscription streaming service, so once their subscription expires they will lose the ability to stream those songs they supposedly "bought" before. Were they sold in a non-DRM encumbered format so they can keep playing their previous purchases they already downloaded?
They did that before. Cash for clunkers, it was really debt and despair for millions, courtesy of Obummer. They took a whole class of cars off the road and it really hit minorities the worst.
The federal program known as the Car Allowance Rebate System was a voluntary program. Nobody was forced to give up their perfectly functioning older cars, as the (crap) summary implies might happen here. But please, don't let me get in the way of your "Thanks, Obama" meme moment.
I think deep down he's haunted by fact that Apple - which had been so vanquished MSFT was loaning Apple money just to keep them afloat in 1998 as a antitrust argument...
This idea Microsoft had to "save" Apple once upon a time is one of the oldest in the book. I've heard some people go as far as to claim that Microsoft bought Apple. They didn't loan Apple any money, as you state. They purchased $150 million in stock, and it was non-voting shares at that. This on a company with a market cap (at that time) or 2.3 billion, to put into perspective the size of this investment really. Also, the share purchase was part of a lawsuit settlement, not Microsoft being nice.
The stock was all sold by 2003, and Microsoft made a decent profit on their investment -- the end.
He has been out of the company as its head for some time now. Are people really expecting him to clutch to a an unsupported mobile platform like a drowning man in the sea because he's too proud to admit his former company made a bomb? I think he's a little more practical then that. Not being indoctrinated into the Kool-Aid Klub, the choice of where to go is obvious.
After all the talk about "America First". Trump is definitely not making that happen. Whether it's because he doesn't know how to work the political scene, or he doesn't care when it comes to major corporations (even declining ones), it isn't happening.
Only an idiot would think Trump was going to do anything so grand about unemployment to start with. He's the President, not the king he believes himself to be, and the "hometown employment issues" are caused by several factors, not all of which he has the power do anything about.
Environmental issues and advances in technology are putting the coal miners out of work. Trump cant stop tech progress, and he's not able to convince everyone Global Warming isn't a thing.
Manufacturing? That's been going away so long it's too late to stop it now. When the factories are already mothballed the cost to get them started again is too high. Plus, some of that is NAFTA, and since NAFTA is a treaty, Trump has zero authority to just stop it.
Jobs being lost to automation? Again, Trump can't stop progress. The H1B program and enforcing documentation requirements for employment to reduce illegal immigrants taking jobs are perhaps the only things he could really do anything about, but that requires the cooperation of a bunch of other people who may be on the cut to look the other way, and a lot of people (who are better at business than Trump) to agree with his views, and they don't because they're looking out for their own bottom line.
"I'm going to bring back the jobs" was just mouth-service to get the Uneducated Vote, and it worked.
What sensationalist tripe.
What are they going to do, strand millions of lower-income people who can't afford to replace their $2000 clunker with a $30,000 new car?
To install an antenna on a tall pole/tower there is many times a rule that the tower must be able to fall over in any direction and still be on your property. So unless you have your home on a large lot that might restrict how tall you can go.