What? Of course they don't. You make a new version of the app with all the content a week or whatever before, and allow it to get through whatever review process there is. At a known time, your app starts using those features.
Yes, there may be a privacy button - which switches the camera to recording in a different encryption key that is only available through a process with adequate safeguards. Allowing the cop the opportunity to review the video is in general a terrible idea, if done before they have given a statement. Otherwise, their statement will always precisely match the video, with an interpretation of the events that make the cop look good, or a description of what happened off camera view. The person being recorded on the other hand will likely have to give a statement from memory, so his statement will seem to have more clear errors that are obviously not what happened (as all statements do), and be less credible.
And if they get to automated vehicles, which do not need drivers, and dramatically reduce their operating costs, then they may become profitable again. Getting there from here is hard.
Yeah - no. 'Anyone can create a web-app' - great. The problem is not creating the app, it's getting people to use it when there are compelling alternatives. As an example, craigslist died utterly in the UK, because it diddn't launch as quickly as ebay.
In the context of a lifetime warranty, the company will want to reduce their costs as much as possible - this includes doing preventive maintenance on the vehicle that your average owner won't do. If you're not able to drive it without cleaning off the snow, then that's a different issue from something breaking due to a fault, or lack of maintainance.
You are assuming that existing owners spend time checking out their car.
Internal sensors can detect a number of defects, and you can greatly reduce the cost of service if you can nuke all of the booking and other work, and instead get the car notifying you that if you pop in for a free service as you're about to drive past it, you get a free pizza (or whatever), so they can correct what's wrong with the car, and do whatever quick preventive maintainance would reduce their costs, that may greatly improve the condition of the car over a comparable car which doesn't have such a plan.
Yes, it is more than price, and yes, there is a cost. However, assembly in orbit is also a valuable skill to learn that is a great positive going forward, and developing that robustly will mean you save nearly two billion dollars per launch. With SLS, you get a way to use a rocket that is too expensive to use.
NASA never really wanted SLS. NASA got SLS mandated on it. They were compelled by congress to build a 'shuttle derived' vehicle. There is no real mission for SLS, and it eats up huge amounts of the limited budget on things that could be done much cheaper in other ways.
"would we save $BIGBUCKS by building on what we have instead of starting nearly from scratch?".
In short - often no. Nobody sane thinks that you can launch SLS for under 2 billion dollars per launch. This is a launch cost of $30000 per kg of payload.
Falcon 9 can launch the same payload (admittedly split into several) for $5000/kg. Falcon heavy (debut flight expected within several months) launches can currently be bought for around $1500/kg.
SLS 'benefited' from congress - who at best have a passing knowledge of rocketry, but a very good knowledge of who makes existing hardware in their constituencies mandating that it use shuttle components.
If you can get - for the same launch cost - not 70 tons, but 1400 tons to orbit, even if they are in 54 ton, not 70 ton lumps - it starts being really questionable what the benefit of the 'shuttle derived' heritage is buying you.
I note also that SpaceX has an at least credible plan to get launch costs down from the above $1500/kg to $30/kg or so, in a totally reusable vehicle. At this sort of cost, it becomes insane not to entirely reevaluate your lunar strategy.
For example, it may become entirely reasonable not to use a lightweight aluminium-lithium stir-welded composite structure which is indeed very light, but requires months of engineering to design and costs millions, but instead a half inch thick decent aluminium structure that costs tens of thousands.
You do it by trialling it in selected groups. One obvious way is to take ten thousand people, who are possible candidates, and flip a coin ten thousand times to see if they're enrolled or not.
This lets you fairly robustly measure how much more or less the people work, and other costs.
For example, if you have a 'normal' benefits system, you have costs in the system about investigating if people are working while claiming benefit, prosecuting them, making sure they're looking for work, penalising them if they're not, advising them on what they must do to get into work or face sanctions,...
In UBI, some or all of these costs go away. Ideally, it would also try to count productivity of people who are working, with or without UBI.
Guaranteed subsistence level income. Then there is the thorny issue of if you're willing to sit on your ass for a small income, and do nothing productive, what are the chances that you were less than productive at work, and a drag on your coworkers.
Imagine some employers without those who are simply pretending to work.
Making the journey shorter - for a given truck on a given delivery route is not possible. If you have more trucks doing 'more efficient (shorter) ' routes that however need more trucks to complete the deliveries on time, then the balance may swing the other way. Because you can plan the journey such as to reduce the driving per package more if you have more packages per route.
He is allowed to. However, simply because he owns the computer doesn't give him the rights to use other connected computers. (facebook et al) Any more than customer support would have the right to post on your social media or go through it if you happen to leave a tab open.
In general, the various 'identity theft' type laws which make it illegal to access others accounts don't have exceptions because it's a stolen computer.
Also very, very expensive.Solar-thermal also only works in locations with close to no cloud cover - it works not at all in diffuse light, whereas solar-pv does.
Solar and wind also don't work so well at night, or when it's calm. If we had cheap energy storage, it's great, and all we need. Otherwise, at the very least, solar and wind need massive continent-scale power shifting - which is not budgeted for in the USA to avoid local dips, or night.
One could argue that at some point of closedness, it's not really a PC any more. If everything is TPMd, you can't install your own software, have to access everything from the app-store, and can't share files between apps locally,...
Err - you're missing the point. " -tell uswhat genuinely better replacement is coming along and I'll agree..." You don't need a better replacement for a good solution to go away.
"Restriction to a person's freedom always results in that person seeking a way to circumvent or resist that restriction and learning to avoid restriction in the future... " - no, it doesn't. Most people will in general go along, if it's not 'too bad' - or they have not experienced anything else. Few people with consoles got PCs because they were unable to program the consoles.
Both apple and microsoft are attempting to encourage the deprecation of 'download and just run' software. This is especially the case on mobile, but desktop platforms too.
Google has recently announced they're killing chrome apps - which has gained a following for being able to run the same app on windows and many other platforms - there is no good solution for apps that require access to hardware.
Will the PC die in the next 5 years - of course not. May the market share of PCs that are open enough to allow the user to install various software and do development shrink - certainly. At some point, niche markets can be for various reasons uneconomic, and the hardware just goes away.
https://www.facebook.com/Steph... This is a post by Stephen Crab - who was at the time the person in charge of UK disability allowances, complaining about an incident of vandalism at his office.
The edited post is " A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are considered able to work with support in the future."
The original post is "A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are able to work. "
The original version is a completely wrong statement. This post lead to people looking at other tweets and social media, which revealed that MPs making a critical vote about removing disability payments likely believed that the group in question was found able to work, when this is not so.
An example (somewhat contrived) of the people who benefit is being removed from in this case might be someone who can slowly wheel themselves 200m several times a day in a wheelchair, understands only short sentences, can talk to people only a couple of hours a day, is blind but can read braille, can just about understand how to use a washing machine, who shouts out randomly. They have not been found 'able to work'.
They have failed to pass the most stringent criteria in order to have no requirements as to things they must do to be "work ready" placed on them, and there is no requirement for them ever to be able to realistically work in the future.
Because sometimes important people post on facebook. https://www.facebook.com/Steph... This is a post by Stephen Crab - who was at the time the person in charge of UK disability allowances, complaining about an incident of vandalism at his office.
The edited post is " A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are considered able to work with support in the future."
The original post is "There has been a lot of miscommunication about this vote which I want to put right. A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are able to work. "
The original version is a completely wrong statement, and especially with the line about 'miscommunication' makes it especially illuminating. This post lead to people looking at other tweets and social media, which revealed that MPs making a critical vote about removing disability payments likely believed that the group in question was found able to work, when this is not so.
An example (somewhat contrived) of the people who benefit is being removed from in this case might be someone who can slowly wheel themselves 200m several times a day in a wheelchair, understands only short sentances, can talk to people only a couple of hours a day, is blind but can read braille, can just about understand how to use a washing machine, who shouts out randomly. They have not been found 'able to work'. They have failed to pass the most stringent criteria in order to have no requirements as to things they must do to be able to work in the future placed on them, and there is no requirement for them ever to be able to realistically work in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
What?
Of course they don't.
You make a new version of the app with all the content a week or whatever before, and allow it to get through whatever review process there is. At a known time, your app starts using those features.
Yes, there may be a privacy button - which switches the camera to recording in a different encryption key that is only available through a process with adequate safeguards. Allowing the cop the opportunity to review the video is in general a terrible idea, if done before they have given a statement.
Otherwise, their statement will always precisely match the video, with an interpretation of the events that make the cop look good, or a description of what happened off camera view. The person being recorded on the other hand will likely have to give a statement from memory, so his statement will seem to have more clear errors that are obviously not what happened (as all statements do), and be less credible.
And if they get to automated vehicles, which do not need drivers, and dramatically reduce their operating costs, then they may become profitable again.
Getting there from here is hard.
Unless they manage to rapidly pivot to driverless cars.
In which case, those VCs could be walking away with a _lot_ of cash.
Yeah - no.
'Anyone can create a web-app' - great.
The problem is not creating the app, it's getting people to use it when there are compelling alternatives.
As an example, craigslist died utterly in the UK, because it diddn't launch as quickly as ebay.
In the context of a lifetime warranty, the company will want to reduce their costs as much as possible - this includes doing preventive maintenance on the vehicle that your average owner won't do.
If you're not able to drive it without cleaning off the snow, then that's a different issue from something breaking due to a fault, or lack of maintainance.
You are assuming that existing owners spend time checking out their car.
Internal sensors can detect a number of defects, and you can greatly reduce the cost of service if you can nuke all of the booking and other work, and instead get the car notifying you that if you pop in for a free service as you're about to drive past it, you get a free pizza (or whatever), so they can correct what's wrong with the car, and do whatever quick preventive maintainance would reduce their costs, that may greatly improve the condition of the car over a comparable car which doesn't have such a plan.
So damaged that if it is available cheaper, I'm buying one.
Yes, it is more than price, and yes, there is a cost.
However, assembly in orbit is also a valuable skill to learn that is a great positive going forward, and developing that robustly will mean you save nearly two billion dollars per launch.
With SLS, you get a way to use a rocket that is too expensive to use.
NASA never really wanted SLS.
NASA got SLS mandated on it.
They were compelled by congress to build a 'shuttle derived' vehicle.
There is no real mission for SLS, and it eats up huge amounts of the limited budget on things that could be done much cheaper in other ways.
"would we save $BIGBUCKS by building on what we have instead of starting nearly from scratch?".
In short - often no.
Nobody sane thinks that you can launch SLS for under 2 billion dollars per launch.
This is a launch cost of $30000 per kg of payload.
Falcon 9 can launch the same payload (admittedly split into several) for $5000/kg.
Falcon heavy (debut flight expected within several months) launches can currently be bought for around $1500/kg.
SLS 'benefited' from congress - who at best have a passing knowledge of rocketry, but a very good knowledge of who makes existing hardware in their constituencies mandating that it use shuttle components.
If you can get - for the same launch cost - not 70 tons, but 1400 tons to orbit, even if they are in 54 ton, not 70 ton lumps - it starts being really questionable what the benefit of the 'shuttle derived' heritage is buying you.
I note also that SpaceX has an at least credible plan to get launch costs down from the above $1500/kg to $30/kg or so, in a totally reusable vehicle.
At this sort of cost, it becomes insane not to entirely reevaluate your lunar strategy.
For example, it may become entirely reasonable not to use a lightweight aluminium-lithium stir-welded composite structure which is indeed very light, but requires months of engineering to design and costs millions, but instead a half inch thick decent aluminium structure that costs tens of thousands.
You do it by trialling it in selected groups.
One obvious way is to take ten thousand people, who are possible candidates, and flip a coin ten thousand times to see if they're enrolled or not.
This lets you fairly robustly measure how much more or less the people work, and other costs.
For example, if you have a 'normal' benefits system, you have costs in the system about investigating if people are working while claiming benefit, prosecuting them, making sure they're looking for work, penalising them if they're not, advising them on what they must do to get into work or face sanctions, ...
In UBI, some or all of these costs go away.
Ideally, it would also try to count productivity of people who are working, with or without UBI.
Guaranteed subsistence level income.
Then there is the thorny issue of if you're willing to sit on your ass for a small income, and do nothing productive, what are the chances that you were less than productive at work, and a drag on your coworkers.
Imagine some employers without those who are simply pretending to work.
Making the journey shorter - for a given truck on a given delivery route is not possible.
If you have more trucks doing 'more efficient (shorter) ' routes that however need more trucks to complete the deliveries on time, then the balance may swing the other way.
Because you can plan the journey such as to reduce the driving per package more if you have more packages per route.
He is allowed to. However, simply because he owns the computer doesn't give him the rights to use other connected computers. (facebook et al)
Any more than customer support would have the right to post on your social media or go through it if you happen to leave a tab open.
Nuclear has planned maintenance windows in general, and it's rarely the only baseload power supply.
Hence in quotes. 'unauthorised access to a computer' type statutes.
In general, the various 'identity theft' type laws which make it illegal to access others accounts don't have exceptions because it's a stolen computer.
'available' - well - yes - but the price is dramatically higher, even with free energy than grid in nearly all places.
Also very, very expensive.Solar-thermal also only works in locations with close to no cloud cover - it works not at all in diffuse light, whereas solar-pv does.
Solar and wind also don't work so well at night, or when it's calm.
If we had cheap energy storage, it's great, and all we need.
Otherwise, at the very least, solar and wind need massive continent-scale power shifting - which is not budgeted for in the USA to avoid local dips, or night.
One could argue that at some point of closedness, it's not really a PC any more. ...
If everything is TPMd, you can't install your own software, have to access everything from the app-store, and can't share files between apps locally,
Err - you're missing the point.
" -tell uswhat genuinely better replacement is coming along and I'll agree..."
You don't need a better replacement for a good solution to go away.
"Restriction to a person's freedom always results in that person seeking a way to circumvent or resist that restriction and learning to avoid restriction in the future... " - no, it doesn't.
Most people will in general go along, if it's not 'too bad' - or they have not experienced anything else.
Few people with consoles got PCs because they were unable to program the consoles.
Both apple and microsoft are attempting to encourage the deprecation of 'download and just run' software.
This is especially the case on mobile, but desktop platforms too.
Google has recently announced they're killing chrome apps - which has gained a following for being able to run the same app on windows and many other platforms - there is no good solution for apps that require access to hardware.
Will the PC die in the next 5 years - of course not.
May the market share of PCs that are open enough to allow the user to install various software and do development shrink - certainly.
At some point, niche markets can be for various reasons uneconomic, and the hardware just goes away.
https://www.facebook.com/Steph...
This is a post by Stephen Crab - who was at the time the person in charge of UK disability allowances, complaining about an incident of vandalism at his office.
The edited post is " A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are considered able to work with support in the future."
The original post is "A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are able to work. "
The original version is a completely wrong statement. This post lead to people looking at other tweets and social media, which revealed that MPs making a critical vote about removing disability payments likely believed that the group in question was found able to work, when this is not so.
An example (somewhat contrived) of the people who benefit is being removed from in this case might be someone who can slowly wheel themselves 200m several times a day in a wheelchair, understands only short sentences, can talk to people only a couple of hours a day, is blind but can read braille, can just about understand how to use a washing machine, who shouts out randomly. They have not been found 'able to work'.
They have failed to pass the most stringent criteria in order to have no requirements as to things they must do to be "work ready" placed on them, and there is no requirement for them ever to be able to realistically work in the future.
Because sometimes important people post on facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/Steph...
This is a post by Stephen Crab - who was at the time the person in charge of UK disability allowances, complaining about an incident of vandalism at his office.
The edited post is " A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are considered able to work with support in the future."
The original post is "There has been a lot of miscommunication about this vote which I want to put right. A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are able to work. "
The original version is a completely wrong statement, and especially with the line about 'miscommunication' makes it especially illuminating. This post lead to people looking at other tweets and social media, which revealed that MPs making a critical vote about removing disability payments likely believed that the group in question was found able to work, when this is not so.
An example (somewhat contrived) of the people who benefit is being removed from in this case might be someone who can slowly wheel themselves 200m several times a day in a wheelchair, understands only short sentances, can talk to people only a couple of hours a day, is blind but can read braille, can just about understand how to use a washing machine, who shouts out randomly. They have not been found 'able to work'.
They have failed to pass the most stringent criteria in order to have no requirements as to things they must do to be able to work in the future placed on them, and there is no requirement for them ever to be able to realistically work in the future.