But the one advantage to remote connection is pre-heating / pre-cooling your home after being gone for several hours/days.
I keep hearing about that advantage, but I can't really get my head around it. I have several dogs. When I get home from a long stretch away, the furnace has plenty of time to warm the house up before I get to stop moving long enough to notice the temperature inside. If the furnace cranked up as soon as it saw my cell phone on the network, that would be more than adequate.
24V with enough power on it isn't anything to scoff at. 3D printers usually run at 12V and people have burnt their houses down with them. That being said, I can't imagine either what you'd have to do to screw up an off-the-shelf low-voltage thermostat install to generate that sort of sustained heat. I think you'd need a faulty furnace controller.
And, really, how much benefit does internet connectivity really add to a thermostat anyway?
I can see use for a *network* connected thermostat. Adjusting the programming on a typical 5-2 with a tiny LCD display and 5-6 buttons is horrible. I have to track down the manual every time daylight savings changes. A web page served up on my LAN would be a far less aggravating user interface, unless the UI designers were from Facebook. I'd also prefer a network of temp sensors throughout the house reporting back to the thermostat rather than having it stuck on the wall of one room. But mostly, it's about the clock. My definition of "smart device" is one where I never need to program the actual time.
Incidentally, the time/program UI issue is what I see as the major advantage of a connected coffee maker.
That being said, there's zero need for any of that information to leave my house.
Replacing a thermostat is just about the easiest "home improvement" thing anyone can do.
Believe it or not, in some jurisdictions (Quebec) it (legally) requires a licensed electrician. I was rather amused when I noticed that in the manual for my last thermostat.
Consumers expect their car (or, rather, any random car they plunk their ass into) to become a peripheral for the mini data center they already carry in their pockets.
If auto manufacturers are coming up with a different answer, they're asking the wrong questions. Or, more likely, the questions intended to elicit the answer they want to hear.
So, you've got a bunch of devices connected to the internet.
To a WiFi LAN. Unless you're using some sort of "cloud" library in your application (and it doesn't sound like this ESP Basic thing does), it's no less secure than any other device on your network, and if your network isn't secure then you've got far more tempting targets for an attacker than a microprocessor board.
Aside from price, that's one of the things that makes the ESP8266 device more attractive to me than one of the various boards that come with some sort of cloud tie-in; it's my decision what it's allowed to do.
I've been playing around with ESP-12's for the last few weeks and what they're capable of with the libraries available is, for the price, nuts. It's as much work to properly debounce a lousy switch than to build a wireless HTTP server with OTA updates.
Oh, I went old school. C and perl, for the most part. Nobody in their right mind would claim they're good languages, but they're frictionless in a way I never felt when I was working with C++.
2. Did you know C++ has moved on quite a bit in the past twenty years?
I would certainly hope so. That being said, I have absolutely zero interest in rekindling our relationship.
They weren't end of the world scenarios and you wouldn't even really touch them unless you were in the business of writing highly portable generic libraries.
... which is the sort of thing I was doing at the time.
Granted, at the time we were also using a mid-90's vintage of Visual C++ and trying to port to things like g++ on Linux, BeOS, MacOS, etc, so much of the issues we had were less due to "C++ the language" and more because of "C++ the implementation(s)", but Meyers' book was the icing on an increasingly unpalatable cake.
Twenty years ago, Effective C++ was the book which convinced me that C++ was so full of land mines and other hidden traps that I needed to walk away from it and never, ever touch that pile of crap again.
Okay, I lied. It didn't take the entire book; I got the hint after the first five chapters.
Yes, in fact you can. AV corporations know that in spite of the lack of threats, AV protection is still a checklist item for any piece of IT gear going into some organizations. That's why not only can you buy it, but it's usually a pricey package with "Enterprise" in the name.
Apple should comply with this request, it is actually a very good thing for the US (and terrible for china).
I'd actually like to see Google produce a phone, calling it, say, the "Nexus Patriot" or "Nexus Law Enforcement Edition", implementing full backdoor capabilities. And, when they start selling it, pre-emptively send the decryption keys and all necessary software to all government security agencies, including those of pariah nations like North Korea.
If that doesn't make a lasting point... ah, who am I kidding. These fuckers still wouldn't get it.
As for your last statement, no, driverless cars are not an exception to motor vehicle laws. States that are allowing them have passed motor vehicle laws to do so. As such, driverless cars fall, where allowed, fall under the motor vehicle code for that state.
With the exception of being less rambling, how is this functionally different from:
Then automated vehicles should be given a set of exception to the rules and this would need to be legal, so the can override the regulations when the regulations are likely to create trouble.
It seems to me that you're both arguing that motor vehicle codes can (and did) change to accommodate driverless cars. Driverless cars are allowed to do things which, prior to those changes, weren't allowed. Exceptions were made, then codified into law. As I said, once you take that step, the rest is details. If you're arguing (and I think you are) that the legal frameworks are now sufficient to allow driverless cars to flourish without bounds until they take over the roads completely, well, good luck with that.
Let's just be grateful that they've stayed low tech so far.
Actually, I'm just kind of grateful they aren't interested in subtlety. In this case, the guy was a health inspector... he could've eventually had a higher body count if the worst thing he did was fucking up his job. If he were actively sabotaging things, it would have gotten ugly.
TL;DR - bail should be set by the circumstances of the person's ability to pay and the nature of them being a flight risk, NOT the nature of the crime.
The nature of the crime (and likely sentence) has strong influence on being a flight risk. Someone who might not run from a 6 month sentence isn't likely to stick around for a life sentence. A cop who shoots somebody on the job is less likely to be convicted than someone who shoots someone over a drug deal, and tends to get shorter sentences.
Do you really think France, and especially the French, would accept a "state of emergency" lasting years?
I wouldn't have expected the average American to tolerate minimum wage thugs groping children and elderly without effective results for years, either... but apparently, the terrorists won that round.
Well, at least they're close to a national holiday. We've got Canadian retailers up here advertising Black Friday, and we celebrated Thanksgiving over a month ago.
Assault rifles, explosives, and ammunition are not against the law.
In most (sane) countries they're restricted, and even if they aren't they're pretty damning if combined with evidence of a conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.
It's a bit like the "possession of burglary tools" charge that gets tacked on to a break and enter... having a crowbar isn't illegal. Having a crowbar while crawling through someone's backyard at 4am is an indication that you're not just really, really drunk.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep hearing about that advantage, but I can't really get my head around it. I have several dogs. When I get home from a long stretch away, the furnace has plenty of time to warm the house up before I get to stop moving long enough to notice the temperature inside. If the furnace cranked up as soon as it saw my cell phone on the network, that would be more than adequate.
24V with enough power on it isn't anything to scoff at. 3D printers usually run at 12V and people have burnt their houses down with them. That being said, I can't imagine either what you'd have to do to screw up an off-the-shelf low-voltage thermostat install to generate that sort of sustained heat. I think you'd need a faulty furnace controller.
I can see use for a *network* connected thermostat. Adjusting the programming on a typical 5-2 with a tiny LCD display and 5-6 buttons is horrible. I have to track down the manual every time daylight savings changes. A web page served up on my LAN would be a far less aggravating user interface, unless the UI designers were from Facebook. I'd also prefer a network of temp sensors throughout the house reporting back to the thermostat rather than having it stuck on the wall of one room. But mostly, it's about the clock. My definition of "smart device" is one where I never need to program the actual time.
Incidentally, the time/program UI issue is what I see as the major advantage of a connected coffee maker.
That being said, there's zero need for any of that information to leave my house.
Believe it or not, in some jurisdictions (Quebec) it (legally) requires a licensed electrician. I was rather amused when I noticed that in the manual for my last thermostat.
Better yet, reinstall the thermostat that got replaced by the Nest.
Consumers expect their car (or, rather, any random car they plunk their ass into) to become a peripheral for the mini data center they already carry in their pockets.
If auto manufacturers are coming up with a different answer, they're asking the wrong questions. Or, more likely, the questions intended to elicit the answer they want to hear.
To a WiFi LAN. Unless you're using some sort of "cloud" library in your application (and it doesn't sound like this ESP Basic thing does), it's no less secure than any other device on your network, and if your network isn't secure then you've got far more tempting targets for an attacker than a microprocessor board.
Aside from price, that's one of the things that makes the ESP8266 device more attractive to me than one of the various boards that come with some sort of cloud tie-in; it's my decision what it's allowed to do.
I've been playing around with ESP-12's for the last few weeks and what they're capable of with the libraries available is, for the price, nuts. It's as much work to properly debounce a lousy switch than to build a wireless HTTP server with OTA updates.
Oh, I used C++. That was the job. There wasn't a lot of love, but it got done and it worked well. Then I moved on.
Oh, I went old school. C and perl, for the most part. Nobody in their right mind would claim they're good languages, but they're frictionless in a way I never felt when I was working with C++.
I would certainly hope so. That being said, I have absolutely zero interest in rekindling our relationship.
Granted, at the time we were also using a mid-90's vintage of Visual C++ and trying to port to things like g++ on Linux, BeOS, MacOS, etc, so much of the issues we had were less due to "C++ the language" and more because of "C++ the implementation(s)", but Meyers' book was the icing on an increasingly unpalatable cake.
Twenty years ago, Effective C++ was the book which convinced me that C++ was so full of land mines and other hidden traps that I needed to walk away from it and never, ever touch that pile of crap again.
Okay, I lied. It didn't take the entire book; I got the hint after the first five chapters.
Yes, in fact you can. AV corporations know that in spite of the lack of threats, AV protection is still a checklist item for any piece of IT gear going into some organizations. That's why not only can you buy it, but it's usually a pricey package with "Enterprise" in the name.
What?!? Thye showed a stormtrooper actually hit a target? Star Wars is ruined! Damn you, JJ Abrams, damn you to hell!
I'd actually like to see Google produce a phone, calling it, say, the "Nexus Patriot" or "Nexus Law Enforcement Edition", implementing full backdoor capabilities. And, when they start selling it, pre-emptively send the decryption keys and all necessary software to all government security agencies, including those of pariah nations like North Korea.
If that doesn't make a lasting point... ah, who am I kidding. These fuckers still wouldn't get it.
With the exception of being less rambling, how is this functionally different from:
It seems to me that you're both arguing that motor vehicle codes can (and did) change to accommodate driverless cars. Driverless cars are allowed to do things which, prior to those changes, weren't allowed. Exceptions were made, then codified into law. As I said, once you take that step, the rest is details. If you're arguing (and I think you are) that the legal frameworks are now sufficient to allow driverless cars to flourish without bounds until they take over the roads completely, well, good luck with that.
So, we should enforce distracted driving laws on driverless cars?
The fact that an car is even allowed to be driverless is an exception to existing motor vehicle laws. Once you take that step, the rest is details.
Then there's Hollywood, which prefers to substitute explosions for new and novel narrative.
Statistically speaking, if someone in the USA kills you, it will probably be yourself. The suicide rate is quite a bit higher than the homicide rate.
Actually, I'm just kind of grateful they aren't interested in subtlety. In this case, the guy was a health inspector... he could've eventually had a higher body count if the worst thing he did was fucking up his job. If he were actively sabotaging things, it would have gotten ugly.
The nature of the crime (and likely sentence) has strong influence on being a flight risk. Someone who might not run from a 6 month sentence isn't likely to stick around for a life sentence. A cop who shoots somebody on the job is less likely to be convicted than someone who shoots someone over a drug deal, and tends to get shorter sentences.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point?
The atheist reader who is 5'10" and was born in 1972 is probably looking over his shoulder thinking "how did he know... ?"
(Full disclosure: can't be me; I'm just over 5'11").
I think if Nestle is willing to make KitKat a public domain/generic word rather than their own trademarked brand, then I think it could be considered.
Otherwise... no.
I wouldn't have expected the average American to tolerate minimum wage thugs groping children and elderly without effective results for years, either... but apparently, the terrorists won that round.
Well, at least they're close to a national holiday. We've got Canadian retailers up here advertising Black Friday, and we celebrated Thanksgiving over a month ago.
In most (sane) countries they're restricted, and even if they aren't they're pretty damning if combined with evidence of a conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.
It's a bit like the "possession of burglary tools" charge that gets tacked on to a break and enter... having a crowbar isn't illegal. Having a crowbar while crawling through someone's backyard at 4am is an indication that you're not just really, really drunk.