No the argument is that everyone is unfairly ganging up on mobile use to the exclusion of all the other ways a driver can be placed in a sub-optimal position of operating a vehicle. Cheeseburger guy is going to be more likely to cause an accident than the hands-free mobile guy, but nonetheless everyone is picking on the latter and forgetting about the former.
A person having a hands-free mobile conversation isn't going to be listening to the radio, isn't likely to be chatting with other occupants, isn't likely to be eating a cheeseburger, etc.. It isn't an additional distraction, it's just a different one. In many cases a smaller distraction relative to other activities that no one seems to give a second thought to.
Phone use while driving is a distraction, fine. What about cheeseburger eating? What about makeup application? What about conversing with a passenger? What about listening to the radio? What about adjusting the temperature? The blonde standing on the side of the road?...
Where does the phone in its various modes of use stack up against the myriad ways in which a driver might be distracted? I have never heard of any such studies. Regardless of distraction, what is the overall competence of the driver for each of these myriad alternatives to full attention, hands on 10 and 2 (or 9 and 3)? The dumba** with a cheeseburger isn't going to use a turn signal any more than the one with his hand glued to his ear. The bimbo turned around yelling at her brats is just as unlikely to notice the evolving situation in front of her as the one updating her Facebook page.
Until these studies incorporate other forms of distraction for comparison these studies are pointless. Stick the conversants in the same car, measure the driving competence; use a hands free, measure competence; have them hold the phone, measure competence; have them eat a cheeseburger, measure competence. No one does. They all seem to start from a foundation of bias against mobile usage.
I'm not sure whether the person sitting next to you vs. hands-free phone call would be worse--though I suspect the person sitting next to you would result in poorer vehicle operation since there's also a visual distraction. However, the fool with his hand cemented to his ear is definitely going to drive poorer than the other two scenarios. Distracted or not, I guarantee the dumba** with only one free hand is going to not bother using turn signals. The cheeseburger guy in comparison will be a nightmare to everyone else on the road.
There are a lot of assumptions going on here. First, that anyone in the first world would even seriously consider living the "mud hut" life in the name of climate change. Second, that the ruling class in the first world would ever permit the rest of the world entry into the first world. Third, that energy consumption must be severely restricted since there are no safe ways to produce first world quantities of power absent carbon-based fuels.
The world's present energy mix, and consumption practices are built on a history of cheap, readily available fossil fuels. Properly incentivized (read: the external costs of carbon-based fuels captured), the world's production would quite naturally swing towards "green energy." Any gaps in technology would be researched and quickly filled. Efficiency can and would be found. There's no reason we can't do things differently and yet maintain a high standard of living except that entrenched interests on the production side like it the way it is.
Actually, you will find many Windows deployments via virtual machines configured to those kinds of specs. They run well for the purposes they were created. Also, your order of "true" system requirements is off. Vista was the largest resource hog between it and Windows 7 and 8 with 8 using the fewest resources. The OS has continued to back off on resource requirements. This cannot necessarily be said for the applications running on them, however, Microsoft isn't writing specs for those applications, it's writing them for the OS.
Minimum requirements are perceived by many as a measure of efficiency. If Microsoft were to increase the minimum specs, everyone would be whining about how bloated Windows is. The operating system should NOT be a major consumer of a system's resources. A system's resources should be maximally available to conserve battery power (on mobile platforms) and for running software in general. For the Linux crowd, being able to run on ancient crap is a badge of honor.
Normally I'm not in the habit of praising Microsoft. However, the fact that they have been able to expand the capabilities of their OS as much as they have from where Vista was and still hold the line of system requirements is commendable. It certainly doesn't help drive new PC sales, but it's an impressive credit to their development teams.
It has nothing to do with what is being run on these diminutive machines, it has to do with the needless complexity of supporting two architectures. The end user wouldn't know the difference, but it would lighten the burden for all software developers whether writing Windows, or software targeting Windows.
Power companies have gas or oil powered plants to compensate during peek usage or other times when additional power is required. I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. I'm suggesting that power companies take advantage of market trends by adding solar installation and maintenance businesses. Kind of like how some natural gas companies offer appliance maintenance.
I fail to see a problem with local/green energy production. Power distribution infrastructure is terribly vulnerable, horribly inefficient, and more often than not attached to a chimney.
Too many industries have the philosophy of "if it's broke, don't fix it." It's time to develop and employ 21st century technology, join up or stand aside. There's no reason power companies can switch their business model up a bit and adapt. Perhaps add SolarCity style businesses to their portfolio.
Boeing was going to get one of the contracts regardless. They have the favor of Congress and a very long history in aerospace. Sierra Nevada had to compete with SpaceX to which they fail miserably. At this point compared to SpaceX, Sierra Nevada has proven precious little to NASA and are asking for substantially more money. Not only is SpaceX already successfully delivering and returning payloads for NASA but their proposal for manned transport is merely an evolution of their already flying equipment. Sierra Nevada hasn't even gotten to space yet with a test vehicle. That isn't expected to happen until Nov. 2016.
More likely SpaceX bid exactly, and Boeing overbid, but I guess we'll see in a few years.
For Sierra Nevada it costs little to challenge the contracts. For NASA, choosing Boeing and SpaceX made sense. Boeing has the favor of Congress, and a very long history in aerospace. SpaceX is the young upstart with a startling reach that continues to make good on promises yet has zero of the inefficiencies endemic to old fat cats like Boeing. To date, Sierra Nevada has proven precious little with expected costs well more than SpaceX even if not as much as Boeing. That Boeing was going to win a contract was a given for many reasons, Sierra Nevada had to compete not with them but with SpaceX, at which they fail miserably.
That would add inefficiencies to the process as well as limit investment in long term higher capability solutions in favor of playing it safe.
At this point a certain amount of customization is generally required to be made for the payloads going up. Some missions offer more flexibility than others, but generally you have to know the launch system ahead of time, not pick it after the fact.
From the launch company's perspective, they can only reach as far as they can be assured they can afford. From the investor's perspective the chance of ROI is riskier when a company has the promise of one paying job, instead of say ten paying jobs. NASA can be criticized for many things, but I'm not sure this is one of them. It's rather hard to have a buyer's market with out adequate competition. NASA is fostering the creation of that competition with the COTS and C3PO programs.
There seems to be a perception that these contract batches are the only ones that will be offered, they are not. There are plenty more contracts that will be up for bid in the future. I can guess at reasons for which Boeing was chosen over Sierra Nevada for this round but it doesn't mean Sierra Nevada is excluded from future rounds. Call it a hunch but given that SpaceX is offering the same services for almost half the cost of Boeing, Boeing probably isn't going to fare quite so well in the next round should they SpaceX succeed at delivering. Unless politicians intervene, SpaceX will be setting the bar for future contracts.
The limited scope of government (federal at least) is a primary contributor to much of the bulls**t taking place within the states. Ironically, whenever citizens are grieved by their local governments they expect Mr. Obama (or current) to save them. Not Congress, not their state government, and definitely not their municipal legislators. A quick scan of the "We the People" petition site proves just how little people understand the governments presiding over them.
I cannot say whether they are or are not. However, given that dealerships traditionally make their money from the service side, not sales, it is easy to see why dealers would not want to sell Teslas or other EVs from manufacturers that they're already selling for (think Nissan Leafs, and Chevy Volts). Compared to ICE powered cars, EVs require substantially less maintenance.
In order to sell something in a particular location you need to have a point of presence in that location. When this "Interstate Commerce Clause" was conceived, no one had in mind that Iowans would be prevented from hitching up their wagons and driving to California to buy their plow. They were addressing issues such as the Iowan government baring, imposing tariffs, or otherwise restricting the flow of Californian goods and services in Iowa.
You do not need to provide a complete and better solution before pointing out the flaws in an existing one. While being anti-capitalistic in its own right, elucidating problems, sharing discoveries and ideas is the most efficient means of coming to a solution for any particular challenge. Capitalism is capable of achieving only local maximum. The easiest way to see this is to imagine the nations of the world all comporting themselves as the Western world does. Capitalism by definition is a pyramid wherein each layer stands upon the back of others. With each rise in elevation fewer are able to be supported. Until utopia has been achieved for all, we should not rest with what we have.
I think the most efficient means for Tesla to squash this regulatory capture is probably to focus on building momentum for it's vehicles as well as manufacturer direct sales and maintenance in those states presenting no or minimal obstacles. It's far harder for the entrenched interests to fight ubiquity and "me too" protests than it is to fight a team of lawyers from a start up company with right on their side.
You're missing the point. Their technology isn't solely for the purpose of gaming. They are soon to start pursuing it for games, but this is already being commercially leveraged for a problem domain that was sorely needing the help. Point cloud mapping of real life for engineering and planning.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if you might be prone to road rage...
Are you from Texas?
No the argument is that everyone is unfairly ganging up on mobile use to the exclusion of all the other ways a driver can be placed in a sub-optimal position of operating a vehicle. Cheeseburger guy is going to be more likely to cause an accident than the hands-free mobile guy, but nonetheless everyone is picking on the latter and forgetting about the former.
A person having a hands-free mobile conversation isn't going to be listening to the radio, isn't likely to be chatting with other occupants, isn't likely to be eating a cheeseburger, etc.. It isn't an additional distraction, it's just a different one. In many cases a smaller distraction relative to other activities that no one seems to give a second thought to.
Phone use while driving is a distraction, fine. What about cheeseburger eating? What about makeup application? What about conversing with a passenger? What about listening to the radio? What about adjusting the temperature? The blonde standing on the side of the road? ...
Where does the phone in its various modes of use stack up against the myriad ways in which a driver might be distracted? I have never heard of any such studies. Regardless of distraction, what is the overall competence of the driver for each of these myriad alternatives to full attention, hands on 10 and 2 (or 9 and 3)? The dumba** with a cheeseburger isn't going to use a turn signal any more than the one with his hand glued to his ear. The bimbo turned around yelling at her brats is just as unlikely to notice the evolving situation in front of her as the one updating her Facebook page.
Until these studies incorporate other forms of distraction for comparison these studies are pointless. Stick the conversants in the same car, measure the driving competence; use a hands free, measure competence; have them hold the phone, measure competence; have them eat a cheeseburger, measure competence. No one does. They all seem to start from a foundation of bias against mobile usage.
I'm not sure whether the person sitting next to you vs. hands-free phone call would be worse--though I suspect the person sitting next to you would result in poorer vehicle operation since there's also a visual distraction. However, the fool with his hand cemented to his ear is definitely going to drive poorer than the other two scenarios. Distracted or not, I guarantee the dumba** with only one free hand is going to not bother using turn signals. The cheeseburger guy in comparison will be a nightmare to everyone else on the road.
I guess Elon has his work cut out for him...
There are a lot of assumptions going on here. First, that anyone in the first world would even seriously consider living the "mud hut" life in the name of climate change. Second, that the ruling class in the first world would ever permit the rest of the world entry into the first world. Third, that energy consumption must be severely restricted since there are no safe ways to produce first world quantities of power absent carbon-based fuels.
The world's present energy mix, and consumption practices are built on a history of cheap, readily available fossil fuels. Properly incentivized (read: the external costs of carbon-based fuels captured), the world's production would quite naturally swing towards "green energy." Any gaps in technology would be researched and quickly filled. Efficiency can and would be found. There's no reason we can't do things differently and yet maintain a high standard of living except that entrenched interests on the production side like it the way it is.
Actually, you will find many Windows deployments via virtual machines configured to those kinds of specs. They run well for the purposes they were created. Also, your order of "true" system requirements is off. Vista was the largest resource hog between it and Windows 7 and 8 with 8 using the fewest resources. The OS has continued to back off on resource requirements. This cannot necessarily be said for the applications running on them, however, Microsoft isn't writing specs for those applications, it's writing them for the OS.
Minimum requirements are perceived by many as a measure of efficiency. If Microsoft were to increase the minimum specs, everyone would be whining about how bloated Windows is. The operating system should NOT be a major consumer of a system's resources. A system's resources should be maximally available to conserve battery power (on mobile platforms) and for running software in general. For the Linux crowd, being able to run on ancient crap is a badge of honor.
Normally I'm not in the habit of praising Microsoft. However, the fact that they have been able to expand the capabilities of their OS as much as they have from where Vista was and still hold the line of system requirements is commendable. It certainly doesn't help drive new PC sales, but it's an impressive credit to their development teams.
It has nothing to do with what is being run on these diminutive machines, it has to do with the needless complexity of supporting two architectures. The end user wouldn't know the difference, but it would lighten the burden for all software developers whether writing Windows, or software targeting Windows.
According to YouTube cavity checks are standard fare so I wouldn't rule it out...
You know, I always thought the fences they keep building along the Mexican border should have been located a bit farther north.
Oh enlightened one, if only people of the world might sit at your feet and learn all that you know...
Power companies have gas or oil powered plants to compensate during peek usage or other times when additional power is required. I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. I'm suggesting that power companies take advantage of market trends by adding solar installation and maintenance businesses. Kind of like how some natural gas companies offer appliance maintenance.
I fail to see a problem with local/green energy production. Power distribution infrastructure is terribly vulnerable, horribly inefficient, and more often than not attached to a chimney.
Too many industries have the philosophy of "if it's broke, don't fix it." It's time to develop and employ 21st century technology, join up or stand aside. There's no reason power companies can switch their business model up a bit and adapt. Perhaps add SolarCity style businesses to their portfolio.
Boeing was going to get one of the contracts regardless. They have the favor of Congress and a very long history in aerospace. Sierra Nevada had to compete with SpaceX to which they fail miserably. At this point compared to SpaceX, Sierra Nevada has proven precious little to NASA and are asking for substantially more money. Not only is SpaceX already successfully delivering and returning payloads for NASA but their proposal for manned transport is merely an evolution of their already flying equipment. Sierra Nevada hasn't even gotten to space yet with a test vehicle. That isn't expected to happen until Nov. 2016.
More likely SpaceX bid exactly, and Boeing overbid, but I guess we'll see in a few years.
For Sierra Nevada it costs little to challenge the contracts. For NASA, choosing Boeing and SpaceX made sense. Boeing has the favor of Congress, and a very long history in aerospace. SpaceX is the young upstart with a startling reach that continues to make good on promises yet has zero of the inefficiencies endemic to old fat cats like Boeing. To date, Sierra Nevada has proven precious little with expected costs well more than SpaceX even if not as much as Boeing. That Boeing was going to win a contract was a given for many reasons, Sierra Nevada had to compete not with them but with SpaceX, at which they fail miserably.
That would add inefficiencies to the process as well as limit investment in long term higher capability solutions in favor of playing it safe.
At this point a certain amount of customization is generally required to be made for the payloads going up. Some missions offer more flexibility than others, but generally you have to know the launch system ahead of time, not pick it after the fact.
From the launch company's perspective, they can only reach as far as they can be assured they can afford. From the investor's perspective the chance of ROI is riskier when a company has the promise of one paying job, instead of say ten paying jobs. NASA can be criticized for many things, but I'm not sure this is one of them. It's rather hard to have a buyer's market with out adequate competition. NASA is fostering the creation of that competition with the COTS and C3PO programs.
There seems to be a perception that these contract batches are the only ones that will be offered, they are not. There are plenty more contracts that will be up for bid in the future. I can guess at reasons for which Boeing was chosen over Sierra Nevada for this round but it doesn't mean Sierra Nevada is excluded from future rounds. Call it a hunch but given that SpaceX is offering the same services for almost half the cost of Boeing, Boeing probably isn't going to fare quite so well in the next round should they SpaceX succeed at delivering. Unless politicians intervene, SpaceX will be setting the bar for future contracts.
Iowan law presently prohibits manufactures from obtaining a dealer's license.
The limited scope of government (federal at least) is a primary contributor to much of the bulls**t taking place within the states. Ironically, whenever citizens are grieved by their local governments they expect Mr. Obama (or current) to save them. Not Congress, not their state government, and definitely not their municipal legislators. A quick scan of the "We the People" petition site proves just how little people understand the governments presiding over them.
I cannot say whether they are or are not. However, given that dealerships traditionally make their money from the service side, not sales, it is easy to see why dealers would not want to sell Teslas or other EVs from manufacturers that they're already selling for (think Nissan Leafs, and Chevy Volts). Compared to ICE powered cars, EVs require substantially less maintenance.
In order to sell something in a particular location you need to have a point of presence in that location. When this "Interstate Commerce Clause" was conceived, no one had in mind that Iowans would be prevented from hitching up their wagons and driving to California to buy their plow. They were addressing issues such as the Iowan government baring, imposing tariffs, or otherwise restricting the flow of Californian goods and services in Iowa.
You do not need to provide a complete and better solution before pointing out the flaws in an existing one. While being anti-capitalistic in its own right, elucidating problems, sharing discoveries and ideas is the most efficient means of coming to a solution for any particular challenge. Capitalism is capable of achieving only local maximum. The easiest way to see this is to imagine the nations of the world all comporting themselves as the Western world does. Capitalism by definition is a pyramid wherein each layer stands upon the back of others. With each rise in elevation fewer are able to be supported. Until utopia has been achieved for all, we should not rest with what we have.
I think the most efficient means for Tesla to squash this regulatory capture is probably to focus on building momentum for it's vehicles as well as manufacturer direct sales and maintenance in those states presenting no or minimal obstacles. It's far harder for the entrenched interests to fight ubiquity and "me too" protests than it is to fight a team of lawyers from a start up company with right on their side.
You're missing the point. Their technology isn't solely for the purpose of gaming. They are soon to start pursuing it for games, but this is already being commercially leveraged for a problem domain that was sorely needing the help. Point cloud mapping of real life for engineering and planning.