All funding is private until the government appropriates it and calls it their own.
It is only private if the money was made without the help of society. That is never the case. Society took part in the investment, it has a right to share in the profit.
Perhaps FIOS is still atypical. 300Mbps/75Mbps is what I've got. Pity I can't get 300/300.
That is not a counterexample. 300Mpbs or 75Mbps are not standard ethernet speeds. To do QoS at those speeds you are either at the mercy of the provider-controlled CPE or you try to shape your traffic in your own router. Either way you are into territory where you can make it work, at least with some routers.
This is very different from the situation at 100Mbps or 1Gbps where QoS tends to work just fine without special configuration, except for enabling it on those devices that have it disabled in the default configuration.
There is no reason to assume that TCP/IP or QoS will be standardized upon or even used at all here.
There is every reason to assume that. The car manufacturers are working hard not just to standardize on IPv6 in general, but in fact to have a common approach to such things as address allocation. QoS will be much easier to handle with ethernet, not because it is less complex but because the code is already written and widely deployed.
Also, QoS is a total dog if you are trying to employ it on consumer grade equipment.
I must admit that I have never tried to use QoS on ethernet with consumer grade equipment. Why would you want to though? Generally you have precisely one switch at home, and that switch is typically capable of simultaneous full speed on all ports, so it only drops packets if multiple input ports are trying to send more than 1 gigabit in total to one output port. I have difficult imagining that scenario in a home.
QoS on the WAN is entirely different, but the WAN is typically not yet ethernet, or at least not ethernet at standard speeds.
Mixing entertainment systems and critical safety systems on the same bus is common already. The only change is that with ethernet you get decent bandwidth and well-understood QoS.
It does not make sense to put half a ton of batteries into a small car. Unfortunately you do not save much on batteries when going from a large car to a small car.
The US has pretty much given up on tactical nukes.
Even from the first of your links: "Most allies today see U.S. tactical nuclear weapons as being of political rather than military significance".
Russia wants tactical nuclear weapons to handle the fact that their conventional forces are inferior to both NATO and (probably) Chinese forces. They are hoping that they would be able to use those weapons in a conflict without triggering the use of strategic nuclear weapons. This is the very opposite of MAD.
No one you don't know or trust is in charge of the private keys for the encryption. Except if you don't trust the party you are talking to, in which case you are looking for DRM, not encryption.
in fact, the cluster bombs and fuel-air explosives we've been using in Iraq and Afghanistan have considerably more explosive power than tactical nuclear weapons.
There is no sensible need to have tactical nuclear weapons. They do nothing for MAD, since they are not all that destructive, and they just encourage proliferation.
Killing the ignition does not mean that you kill steering or braking. Those are mechanical/hydraulical.
Notice the word "power" that I had included twice but you did not. I was wrong about power braking, as long as the car is still in gear, but you definitely lose power steering with the ignition off. You can still steer, you just need to pull harder.
The steering lock only locks when you remove the key from the lock.
Driving without power steering and power braking is not a problem. You just need to apply more force and not panic about the controls not responding the way they usually do. However, in many cars power steering does not completely shut off at least at city speeds. Most modern cars are heavy and steering wheels are generally smaller today than they used to be. Therefore the difference is not nil, even though the car is still drivable with the power steering turned off.
I was not aware that the vacuum would replenish if the ignition was off; I assumed that there would be no intake vacuum to work with. Now that I think about it, it is obvious that the engine still needs to take air in even when no fuel is injected.
According to TFA, the OS is multitasking with the OS stack sharing the user stack. The proof of the maximum stack depth that the developers gave was wrong.
if you push it and hold it for 3 seconds it will turn off the engine no matter the conditions.
It is possible that they have implemented the three second delay in hardware, but it seems rather unlikely. I bet the button is handled completely in software.
And since the brakes are not strong enough to stop the car, you're hosed.
They are, though. Unless the brakes are otherwise faulty. However, if you just try to keep the speed low instead of stopping completely, the brakes will overheat and stop working.
Slashdot Mirror
All funding is private until the government appropriates it and calls it their own.
It is only private if the money was made without the help of society. That is never the case. Society took part in the investment, it has a right to share in the profit.
The OECD report is just the PISA test. That has been thoroughly debunked.
The current teaching methods in the US are falling further and further behind other countries.
How do you know? Which studies show that?
It stopped when it erased '/lib/libc.so'.
Why? I can use rm to remove /lib/libc.so. The problems do not start until after rm is finished...
Perhaps FIOS is still atypical. 300Mbps/75Mbps is what I've got. Pity I can't get 300/300.
That is not a counterexample. 300Mpbs or 75Mbps are not standard ethernet speeds. To do QoS at those speeds you are either at the mercy of the provider-controlled CPE or you try to shape your traffic in your own router. Either way you are into territory where you can make it work, at least with some routers.
This is very different from the situation at 100Mbps or 1Gbps where QoS tends to work just fine without special configuration, except for enabling it on those devices that have it disabled in the default configuration.
I believe they will segment mission critical systems to a dedicate physical bus with redundant links in any proposed in car network.
I will be surprised if they do that. It would make sense, but since they do not do that today, why should they suddenly start doing so?
There is no reason to assume that TCP/IP or QoS will be standardized upon or even used at all here.
There is every reason to assume that. The car manufacturers are working hard not just to standardize on IPv6 in general, but in fact to have a common approach to such things as address allocation. QoS will be much easier to handle with ethernet, not because it is less complex but because the code is already written and widely deployed.
Also, QoS is a total dog if you are trying to employ it on consumer grade equipment.
I must admit that I have never tried to use QoS on ethernet with consumer grade equipment. Why would you want to though? Generally you have precisely one switch at home, and that switch is typically capable of simultaneous full speed on all ports, so it only drops packets if multiple input ports are trying to send more than 1 gigabit in total to one output port. I have difficult imagining that scenario in a home.
QoS on the WAN is entirely different, but the WAN is typically not yet ethernet, or at least not ethernet at standard speeds.
Mixing entertainment systems and critical safety systems on the same bus is common already. The only change is that with ethernet you get decent bandwidth and well-understood QoS.
It does not make sense to put half a ton of batteries into a small car. Unfortunately you do not save much on batteries when going from a large car to a small car.
The US has pretty much given up on tactical nukes.
Even from the first of your links: "Most allies today see U.S. tactical nuclear weapons as being of political rather than military significance".
Russia wants tactical nuclear weapons to handle the fact that their conventional forces are inferior to both NATO and (probably) Chinese forces. They are hoping that they would be able to use those weapons in a conflict without triggering the use of strategic nuclear weapons. This is the very opposite of MAD.
No one you don't know or trust is in charge of the private keys for the encryption. Except if you don't trust the party you are talking to, in which case you are looking for DRM, not encryption.
in fact, the cluster bombs and fuel-air explosives we've been using in Iraq and Afghanistan have considerably more explosive power than tactical nuclear weapons.
There is no sensible need to have tactical nuclear weapons. They do nothing for MAD, since they are not all that destructive, and they just encourage proliferation.
Killing the ignition does not mean that you kill steering or braking. Those are mechanical/hydraulical.
Notice the word "power" that I had included twice but you did not. I was wrong about power braking, as long as the car is still in gear, but you definitely lose power steering with the ignition off. You can still steer, you just need to pull harder.
The steering lock only locks when you remove the key from the lock.
Which is what I wrote.
Driving without power steering and power braking is not a problem. You just need to apply more force and not panic about the controls not responding the way they usually do. However, in many cars power steering does not completely shut off at least at city speeds. Most modern cars are heavy and steering wheels are generally smaller today than they used to be. Therefore the difference is not nil, even though the car is still drivable with the power steering turned off.
I was not aware that the vacuum would replenish if the ignition was off; I assumed that there would be no intake vacuum to work with. Now that I think about it, it is obvious that the engine still needs to take air in even when no fuel is injected.
Your car, your year (presuming you have a key-based ignition and an '80s or newer car).
No. I have not owned a car who did that. But I live in Europe as you say in a later post.
According to TFA, the OS is multitasking with the OS stack sharing the user stack. The proof of the maximum stack depth that the developers gave was wrong.
if you push it and hold it for 3 seconds it will turn off the engine no matter the conditions.
It is possible that they have implemented the three second delay in hardware, but it seems rather unlikely. I bet the button is handled completely in software.
Well scratch that idea then.
Brand and model year please? Just turning the ignition off is enough to engage the steering wheel lock, with the key still in the ignition?
It is not fair for Cogent to just dump the packets at a peering far away from the destination. Peering is not just about zero cost.
Notice how it is always Cogent getting into these fights. Almost everyone else plays nicely with the other children.
Why do you say wut? That seems correct to me?
So you are saying that Cogent should have unlimited power in peering negotiations? Nice.
And since the brakes are not strong enough to stop the car, you're hosed.
They are, though. Unless the brakes are otherwise faulty. However, if you just try to keep the speed low instead of stopping completely, the brakes will overheat and stop working.
All cases have been unrepeatable
Stack overflows tend to be difficult to reproduce.
Modern cars have nothing to turn. They just have a software-controlled button.