I am not an expert, but do work on IOT circuits in my spare time.
I think an accelerometer consumes many times more power than a short range transceiver. The fob probably transmits for 1/10000 of a second every 1-3 seconds. An accelerometer probably draws more power idiling for movement over a 24hr period than the transmitter.
Then there is higher initialization consumption of an accelerometer. At the later stages of the battery, it probably will fail sooner, being unable to draw the necessary power.
It's a nice idea and probably a good trade of security vs battery life in a higher car theft risk area. But over all, I don't think the standard keyless and keyed cars are significantly safer to warrant it.
Like keyless entry, it's just a simple convenience that is nice to have. I understand it's not for everyone, but I really like it.
It's nice to have all the foot lights come on as I approach the car with kids. It's nice to have the interior and my door handle lights come on. The trunk opens/closes with a foot sensor.
And since I haven't touched the fob in my pocket, I don't need to take it out to start the car (I do need to push a small button to open the door). It's also nice to leave the car locked but running w/o the fob. The car will shutdown if someone tries to unpark it.
I don't think the risk is increased by much, if really at all, by going keyless. Knock on wood and all. If someone wants your car there are plenty of ways to take with either which way.
Coal isn't being "sabotaged" by regulations. The environmental costs are being incorporated into its usage. And coal does get a lot of subsidies, from mining, usage, and disposal.
And coal plant designs are of a long gone era. Even the latest approved nuclear plants are 2-3 core design versions past current operations. This isn't true for coal. Of course renewables are all new. The only thing as old as coal is hydro.
Usually the price is regulated and regulators won't jack prices because of the direct consumer impact. Additionally when the operating costs of these plants were considered, they didn't think about all these current and new regulations that jacked up the cost of operations and overhauls.
But the analysts basically say to divest out of coal because the trajectories of many long term factors are against it. Ie: more regulations, other energy options becoming cheaper, and increasing fuel costs.
Thou, I think in our globally connected world, thinking out 20+ years is a bit difficult. You are almost guessing. 20 years ago, I don't think anyone was predicting our current situation.
Yes. Very much so. Even to those outside the field. To officially, precisely, and accurately say something is a "kilogram" our current method was well over a hundred years old and basically sneaker net.
You took a clone of the official standard and compared it against that. The clone couldn't be directly touched, couldn't overly jostled, had an expiration, sits in a double vacuum, and had to be physically moved in proximity to what was being measured or, more likely, calibrated.
With this method, you can build a simple machine (Kibble balance) [nearly] anywhere in the universe, calibrate it, find its measuring relationship to the universal constants, and you can figure out the "kilogram". THAT IS AWESOME.
Layman terms: Before, you had to say "I want this many rocks worth of your stuff." Followed by handing over the rocks. Now you can say "We both know what 1 and 3 are. I want 15 of what you got."
The measurement of how much of something you have, the kilogram, officially stands at the same level as the Meter, Second, and Temperature. All of which are based on universal constants and not the measurement of some useless fool's biology.
Obviously the author of the article meant to catch eyeballs with that title but he did a huge disservice to Bezos and all the readers by choosing such a title.
Because the title says the exact opposite of what Bezos said. He didn't say we need to delay the demise of Amazon. Read the 2 simple quotes in the article & submission. Bezos is saying they need to delay the onset of focusing on their survival and stay focused on the customer as long as possible. This will keep Amazon alive. Once Amazon starts focusing on itself, the beginning of the end starts.
The article's title implies that Amazon is already looking at itself and thus is well on its way to its end. Bezos is saying they need to delay getting to the start of such a day.
This is a case of the reporter not understanding wisdom and passing on their misunderstanding to those they are supposed to educate.
I have never had this much trouble for fraudulent charges. I suddenly discovered a $25 charge for the last 4 months that looked legit (Spotify) but I knew I never purchased.
A 5 minute email and two days later, I was fully credited. For stuff that was 4 months old! They did tell me 2 months afterward that their investigation concluded that they appeared fraudulent and the credits will stand, closing the topic.
I don't understand why people have so much trouble disputing charges.
3/5 US citizens don't have a passport. I bet that's a little higher in the voting population which has a lot of elderly that traveled less abroad (they also didnt need passports for MX & CA).
That's pretty much how it's done in much of the US at the local level. Except for mailing and using a voter card. Proof of identity & residency is all that is needed.
Or you can just use actual secure methods of authentication. The stuff that is found on any standard enterprise level laptop. TPM chips, two factor, encryption, etc. I think we got this stuff down pat about 10 years ago? In the IT world, that's basically a lifetime ago.
Let's put aside the issue of using a password based system in the first place. But a "security expert" would have made things worse. So the official manual will say use a secure 10 character, upper, lower, special, & number password.
The unofficial manual will say look for tape under the machine.
Atleast with the current manual, people will be less likely to share their accounts because it's so easy to setup new ones.
No, Voting is too important to let centrals run it. I don't think you understand how voting works in the US. Nationally, no one votes directly but same safeguards as states.
State level, you need a LOT of corruption across a highly distributed network of independent voluntary organizations to impact a vote. That complex non-standard setup is the primary safeguard against vote results tampering. The second is the volunteers who have a self interest in making sure the other isn't cheating and many independents who ensure no one cheats.
At the local level, you do have independent and committee based outsiders who ensure the few locals aren't cheating the local population.
The paper based voting system in the US that has been used for decades is pretty good. It was the State level discrimination laws and more recently end voter manipulation via social media that has been their only real threats. A "committee" would have made both worse.
BTW, we do have many committees here, they just aren't the only thing the system relies on.
Long term debt just means it won't be covered by net current assets. It won't need to be paid off in under 12 months.
It sets an expectation to investors that this debt will be on the balance sheets and serviced in cash flows for many years. Investors would review how well the debt is being serviced rather than how quickly it will be paid off. And future lenders would consider it as a pending liability that comes before servicement of the debt they will be issuing.
Well said. This 100 hr/wk crap is throughout the consulting industry, not just gaming. I have done it a few weeks over the decade. I am done months of 70 hr/wk over that time. And I normally do 50 hr/wk. And no, I never got overtime pay.
What I noticed is that anything over 70 hr/wk is basically a waste of time (it varies person to person; for me it's ~60). Your productivity starts tanking after 35 hrs. Study after study has shown that people who regularly work 60 hours per week actually are LESS productive than those who work 40 hours per week. Studies have shown that 35 hrs/wk is even better (9-5 w/ 1hr lunch).
Most people know this! Yet we continue to have teams sleeping under tables, holding up ceilings with pizza boxes, and injecting caffeine all over the place.
It makes the ones in charge feel better. It tempers their stress and prevents them from losing it on the workers. "They are sleeping in tents. What more do you want from them?"
But all it really tells me is just how unqualified those middle managers are and how out of touch higher ups are with their operations. Best thing to do is leave. Standing up means you aren't a "team player" and appears less productive... even if you are more.
Ok so lets say you now have a $10+$1 toaster. But you now need to maintain a logistics chain + inventory buffers for each of those parts. And for recycling/trashing the older "pieces". Your toaster may have the global sales volume to setup & run a set of factories for two weeks, but what about these parts? How do you forecast their demand? Huge centralized operations have a hard time factoring in the cost of replacement parts to meet a laptop model's 3 year warranty requirements. Many will just replace your entire device with the latest rather than risk keeping too much inventory. Here you are talking about distributed operations in various environmental scenarios.
Your solution will easily get that original toaster into the $15 range. Which is more expensive than just supplying two or even three non-modular toasters.
My main computer is a Mac mini released in 2010. I "repaired" it three times by upgrading the RAM, swapping the HDD by a low-end SSD and replacing the fan.
You lucky bastard! I can't do that on my new Mac:*(
I don't think a repair economy would work. How much of a $50 item would you pay to repair it? How much would you charge to repair stuff? Would that be enough to live off of and also provide value back to the repaired item? Even if you were to assume the part acquisition cost was close to the original raw part cost and ignored all the inventory holding costs in the supply chain, just labor wise, it would still be expensive.
Each part would have its own supply chain linkup (of course most would be shared with the whole product). So there would be multiple supply chain links for the same product; which lowers predictability. The labor units in all those links also have a cost. The defect rate within those links would actually increase the cumulative defect rate & cost of the repaired product. Then there is a forecasting of the demands of various parts. In today's tech, you would actually end up with more waste. But lets assume we have the Walmart logistics system of 2050 and those are all automated and highly reliable and forecasting of parts requirements is better or equal to just the product.
An economy that has high labor cost like US, doesn't mean people just cost more. It also means that people must produce more too. Either through automation, or specialized skills (ie: a forklift driver costs more than 50 people in around country, but produces more results). Repair positions need to bring in enough revenue to sustain the "average lifestyle" of that community. Unless we have double digit unemployment where that average is low enough; a repair position just won't be worth it.
Example: for a $25000 car, you don't need to do your own oil change. There is a sustainable industry for that, and it wouldn't exist if that is all they did. It is actually subsidized by all the other services that shop provides. But for your $250 lawn mower, there is no industry to replace the oil. Even for the expensive car, there is no workforce to pump fuel. Because the revenue for those services will be less than the societal necessitated labor cost.
I am not saying a repair system won't work or we shouldn't encourage it. We all change our own vacuum bags, residential air filters, usb cables, AA batteries, etc. So if the product was built to be easily repaired many would use their own "free labor" to do so. I just don't think it would sustain a segment of commerce and solve the labor problems in our society. Or the labor problem will go away, but societal advancement would take a hit.
BTW, there are LARGE parts of our economy that are repair based. Big equipment like AC Units, farm/mining/construction/industrial machines, hospital systems, airplanes, ships, cars, etc. But these are all big ticket items and we are talking about more commodity level stuff here... like your laptop, cell phone, water bottles, microwaves, furniture, toaster, milk/juice/egg cartons, etc. And these are actually repaired and/or reused in more developing economies.
Minor correction. The former FCC regulation was US only. It didn't change how packets were managed in S. Korea or India if you were connecting to a server there. Nor how they were managed passing through Europe or Japan.
The CA case is no different. Replace US with CA, India/Korea with NJ/FL and Europe/Japan with OH/GA.
They are probably talking about the site and it's logistics & grid connectivity. But I don't see it happening for most of their coal plants. They will probably reuse one out of ten of these for this.
China has a lot of these types of plans where they aim very high, shoot in the middle, and come out pretty much where every other nation does.
Yup. If people just focused on how much power & responsibility their actual representatives gave away, we wouldn't have half the nasty us vs them discussions.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not an expert, but do work on IOT circuits in my spare time.
I think an accelerometer consumes many times more power than a short range transceiver. The fob probably transmits for 1/10000 of a second every 1-3 seconds. An accelerometer probably draws more power idiling for movement over a 24hr period than the transmitter.
Then there is higher initialization consumption of an accelerometer. At the later stages of the battery, it probably will fail sooner, being unable to draw the necessary power.
It's a nice idea and probably a good trade of security vs battery life in a higher car theft risk area. But over all, I don't think the standard keyless and keyed cars are significantly safer to warrant it.
Like keyless entry, it's just a simple convenience that is nice to have. I understand it's not for everyone, but I really like it.
It's nice to have all the foot lights come on as I approach the car with kids. It's nice to have the interior and my door handle lights come on. The trunk opens/closes with a foot sensor.
And since I haven't touched the fob in my pocket, I don't need to take it out to start the car (I do need to push a small button to open the door). It's also nice to leave the car locked but running w/o the fob. The car will shutdown if someone tries to unpark it.
I don't think the risk is increased by much, if really at all, by going keyless. Knock on wood and all. If someone wants your car there are plenty of ways to take with either which way.
Careful, you might not have paper left to print that list.
Republicans had majority...
Coal isn't being "sabotaged" by regulations. The environmental costs are being incorporated into its usage. And coal does get a lot of subsidies, from mining, usage, and disposal.
And coal plant designs are of a long gone era. Even the latest approved nuclear plants are 2-3 core design versions past current operations. This isn't true for coal. Of course renewables are all new. The only thing as old as coal is hydro.
Usually the price is regulated and regulators won't jack prices because of the direct consumer impact. Additionally when the operating costs of these plants were considered, they didn't think about all these current and new regulations that jacked up the cost of operations and overhauls.
But the analysts basically say to divest out of coal because the trajectories of many long term factors are against it. Ie: more regulations, other energy options becoming cheaper, and increasing fuel costs.
Thou, I think in our globally connected world, thinking out 20+ years is a bit difficult. You are almost guessing. 20 years ago, I don't think anyone was predicting our current situation.
Yes. Very much so. Even to those outside the field. To officially, precisely, and accurately say something is a "kilogram" our current method was well over a hundred years old and basically sneaker net.
You took a clone of the official standard and compared it against that. The clone couldn't be directly touched, couldn't overly jostled, had an expiration, sits in a double vacuum, and had to be physically moved in proximity to what was being measured or, more likely, calibrated.
With this method, you can build a simple machine (Kibble balance) [nearly] anywhere in the universe, calibrate it, find its measuring relationship to the universal constants, and you can figure out the "kilogram". THAT IS AWESOME.
Layman terms: Before, you had to say "I want this many rocks worth of your stuff." Followed by handing over the rocks. Now you can say "We both know what 1 and 3 are. I want 15 of what you got."
The measurement of how much of something you have, the kilogram, officially stands at the same level as the Meter, Second, and Temperature. All of which are based on universal constants and not the measurement of some useless fool's biology.
Obviously the author of the article meant to catch eyeballs with that title but he did a huge disservice to Bezos and all the readers by choosing such a title.
Because the title says the exact opposite of what Bezos said. He didn't say we need to delay the demise of Amazon. Read the 2 simple quotes in the article & submission. Bezos is saying they need to delay the onset of focusing on their survival and stay focused on the customer as long as possible. This will keep Amazon alive. Once Amazon starts focusing on itself, the beginning of the end starts.
The article's title implies that Amazon is already looking at itself and thus is well on its way to its end. Bezos is saying they need to delay getting to the start of such a day.
This is a case of the reporter not understanding wisdom and passing on their misunderstanding to those they are supposed to educate.
I have never had this much trouble for fraudulent charges. I suddenly discovered a $25 charge for the last 4 months that looked legit (Spotify) but I knew I never purchased.
A 5 minute email and two days later, I was fully credited. For stuff that was 4 months old! They did tell me 2 months afterward that their investigation concluded that they appeared fraudulent and the credits will stand, closing the topic.
I don't understand why people have so much trouble disputing charges.
3/5 US citizens don't have a passport. I bet that's a little higher in the voting population which has a lot of elderly that traveled less abroad (they also didnt need passports for MX & CA).
That's pretty much how it's done in much of the US at the local level. Except for mailing and using a voter card. Proof of identity & residency is all that is needed.
Or you can just use actual secure methods of authentication. The stuff that is found on any standard enterprise level laptop. TPM chips, two factor, encryption, etc. I think we got this stuff down pat about 10 years ago? In the IT world, that's basically a lifetime ago.
Let's put aside the issue of using a password based system in the first place. But a "security expert" would have made things worse. So the official manual will say use a secure 10 character, upper, lower, special, & number password.
The unofficial manual will say look for tape under the machine.
Atleast with the current manual, people will be less likely to share their accounts because it's so easy to setup new ones.
No, Voting is too important to let centrals run it. I don't think you understand how voting works in the US. Nationally, no one votes directly but same safeguards as states.
State level, you need a LOT of corruption across a highly distributed network of independent voluntary organizations to impact a vote. That complex non-standard setup is the primary safeguard against vote results tampering. The second is the volunteers who have a self interest in making sure the other isn't cheating and many independents who ensure no one cheats.
At the local level, you do have independent and committee based outsiders who ensure the few locals aren't cheating the local population.
The paper based voting system in the US that has been used for decades is pretty good. It was the State level discrimination laws and more recently end voter manipulation via social media that has been their only real threats. A "committee" would have made both worse.
BTW, we do have many committees here, they just aren't the only thing the system relies on.
It's not some "commission" or "committee"; it's the people. There are still enough people here who will standup to corruption.
I am confused. Do those distros run X in root or wheel? I don't remember having to do this.
And are they saying other systems do app level sandboxing and prevent system level applications from writing wherever they like?
Long term debt just means it won't be covered by net current assets. It won't need to be paid off in under 12 months.
It sets an expectation to investors that this debt will be on the balance sheets and serviced in cash flows for many years. Investors would review how well the debt is being serviced rather than how quickly it will be paid off. And future lenders would consider it as a pending liability that comes before servicement of the debt they will be issuing.
Well said. This 100 hr/wk crap is throughout the consulting industry, not just gaming. I have done it a few weeks over the decade. I am done months of 70 hr/wk over that time. And I normally do 50 hr/wk. And no, I never got overtime pay.
What I noticed is that anything over 70 hr/wk is basically a waste of time (it varies person to person; for me it's ~60). Your productivity starts tanking after 35 hrs. Study after study has shown that people who regularly work 60 hours per week actually are LESS productive than those who work 40 hours per week. Studies have shown that 35 hrs/wk is even better (9-5 w/ 1hr lunch).
Most people know this! Yet we continue to have teams sleeping under tables, holding up ceilings with pizza boxes, and injecting caffeine all over the place.
It makes the ones in charge feel better. It tempers their stress and prevents them from losing it on the workers. "They are sleeping in tents. What more do you want from them?"
But all it really tells me is just how unqualified those middle managers are and how out of touch higher ups are with their operations. Best thing to do is leave. Standing up means you aren't a "team player" and appears less productive... even if you are more.
Ok so lets say you now have a $10+$1 toaster. But you now need to maintain a logistics chain + inventory buffers for each of those parts. And for recycling/trashing the older "pieces". Your toaster may have the global sales volume to setup & run a set of factories for two weeks, but what about these parts? How do you forecast their demand? Huge centralized operations have a hard time factoring in the cost of replacement parts to meet a laptop model's 3 year warranty requirements. Many will just replace your entire device with the latest rather than risk keeping too much inventory. Here you are talking about distributed operations in various environmental scenarios.
Your solution will easily get that original toaster into the $15 range. Which is more expensive than just supplying two or even three non-modular toasters.
My main computer is a Mac mini released in 2010. I "repaired" it three times by upgrading the RAM, swapping the HDD by a low-end SSD and replacing the fan.
You lucky bastard! I can't do that on my new Mac :*(
I don't think a repair economy would work. How much of a $50 item would you pay to repair it? How much would you charge to repair stuff? Would that be enough to live off of and also provide value back to the repaired item? Even if you were to assume the part acquisition cost was close to the original raw part cost and ignored all the inventory holding costs in the supply chain, just labor wise, it would still be expensive.
Each part would have its own supply chain linkup (of course most would be shared with the whole product). So there would be multiple supply chain links for the same product; which lowers predictability. The labor units in all those links also have a cost. The defect rate within those links would actually increase the cumulative defect rate & cost of the repaired product. Then there is a forecasting of the demands of various parts. In today's tech, you would actually end up with more waste. But lets assume we have the Walmart logistics system of 2050 and those are all automated and highly reliable and forecasting of parts requirements is better or equal to just the product.
An economy that has high labor cost like US, doesn't mean people just cost more. It also means that people must produce more too. Either through automation, or specialized skills (ie: a forklift driver costs more than 50 people in around country, but produces more results). Repair positions need to bring in enough revenue to sustain the "average lifestyle" of that community. Unless we have double digit unemployment where that average is low enough; a repair position just won't be worth it.
Example: for a $25000 car, you don't need to do your own oil change. There is a sustainable industry for that, and it wouldn't exist if that is all they did. It is actually subsidized by all the other services that shop provides. But for your $250 lawn mower, there is no industry to replace the oil. Even for the expensive car, there is no workforce to pump fuel. Because the revenue for those services will be less than the societal necessitated labor cost.
I am not saying a repair system won't work or we shouldn't encourage it. We all change our own vacuum bags, residential air filters, usb cables, AA batteries, etc. So if the product was built to be easily repaired many would use their own "free labor" to do so. I just don't think it would sustain a segment of commerce and solve the labor problems in our society. Or the labor problem will go away, but societal advancement would take a hit.
BTW, there are LARGE parts of our economy that are repair based. Big equipment like AC Units, farm/mining/construction/industrial machines, hospital systems, airplanes, ships, cars, etc. But these are all big ticket items and we are talking about more commodity level stuff here... like your laptop, cell phone, water bottles, microwaves, furniture, toaster, milk/juice/egg cartons, etc. And these are actually repaired and/or reused in more developing economies.
Minor correction. The former FCC regulation was US only. It didn't change how packets were managed in S. Korea or India if you were connecting to a server there. Nor how they were managed passing through Europe or Japan.
The CA case is no different. Replace US with CA, India/Korea with NJ/FL and Europe/Japan with OH/GA.
They are probably talking about the site and it's logistics & grid connectivity. But I don't see it happening for most of their coal plants. They will probably reuse one out of ten of these for this.
China has a lot of these types of plans where they aim very high, shoot in the middle, and come out pretty much where every other nation does.
Well at that point I would demand Congress take him down. Else every person who voted to put him in, should be taken out.
Is this really that hard to understand?
And btw, I don't think they should vote him in in the first place.
Yup. If people just focused on how much power & responsibility their actual representatives gave away, we wouldn't have half the nasty us vs them discussions.