And Audi had a higher incident rate as well, and that was confirmed to be driver error.
The confirmation was incorrect. I owned an Audi Turbo 5000 and while going down a highway at 70mph on cruse control it began to accelerate. My feet were not touching the pedals.
A flaw in the check valve prevented the brakes from working while boost was positive. Turning off the dashboard switch cleared the fault.
My experience is the car had an issue. I suspect a hopped-up CB radio used by a passing truck triggered the event. Do they use CB radios in Japan or Europe?
We hire people to solve problems. Somebody who owns the problem figures out they need a warm body to solve it. They spec the position and ask HR for a few applicants.
HR does not hire - they reject. For the 5 candidates, they have about 50 to 500 resumes to go through. Thus they look for any reason to reject the resume. When they get down to about 20, they pick the best 10 and submit them to the manager. The manager selects 5 of the 10 that are of interest. The interview process begins. Thus sending resumes nets you a 2% - 0.2% chance. Does this match your experience?
But you can bypass the system. Find the company you want to work for. Learn what they do, and what problems they have. Identify a problem you can solve. Find the manager that owns that problem. Contact them (best in person) and show them that you know the company, the problem, and show how you can solve it. If you nail it, the manager takes you to HR and tells them to hire you.
I kid you not - this has worked for me several times. I never worry about getting a job, no matter how bad the economy is.
Read the book "What color is your Parachute" if you need a step-by-step guide.
Remember "Blue Pill" - the hardware-virtualization-based root kit proof? Turning off HV prevents that type of root kit from being installed. Actually, not a bad idea. Keep it off unless it is needed.
Uh.... I have two state time trial championships, and finished fourth in my class at the American Mountain Bike Championships. Top cyclists are pretty smart people, and you have to be to get your body in the kind of shape to perform at that level.
A friend who has won over 6 state championships says the strongest guys doesn't always with, but the smartest strong guy usually does. He fits that description to a T.
"Ideas worth spreading"... but not spreading very far... since they choose to use Silverlight. WTF?
I only have Silverlight installed on one of my 10 machines. And I honestly can't remember which one it is on. Can't say that I found any issues with it, but my interest in keeping my installed software stack low means I will keep it off most machines. It is rare to encounter a site that needs it, so it stays off.
So we have another possibly good idea from Microsoft technical that gets screwed by their marketing and management. Microsoft has become the new Xerox. See the history of Xerox PARC if you don't understand that comment.
I'll be offering a kit, soon. It will include a ball peed hammer, a sticker and a map. Simple - easy to use: 1 - place sticker on head at location indicated 2 - Aim hammer at sticker 3 - strike briskly - repeat if necessary 4 - bliss - if not for you, then perhaps others
Order one today at w w w . I want to strike myself in the head with a hammer to achieve bliss . com
Some years ago, when the Audi 5000 (IIRC) was under fire for a similar problem, one of the car magazines (Car & Driver, IIRC) did a test where they compared the stopping distance from 60 mph at closed throttle (the normal case) to that at full throttle. They reported the stopping distances were identical -- the brakes were so much stronger than the engine that the engine's torque had no effect at all.
I used to own an Audi 5000 Turbo. Indeed, the brakes were much stronger than the engine. But if the check valve between the intake manifold and the brake booster failed, then you would have high pressure air where you needed sub-atmospheric air, resulting in an inability to operate the brakes.
This happened to me. If the engine had positive boost, you couldn't budge the brake petal.
So while the Car & Driver magazine was correct for a car in perfect shape, their test did not show what would happen with the combination of a worn check valve and a turbo engine.
Oh yeah - one day the cruse control made the car suddenly accelerate, and with a worn check valve I found myself in a runaway Audi with not brakes. Glad it had a on/off switch on the dashboard.
I don't think your incident relates to the claims which prompted the recall. The claims were that the cars would jump into gear by themselves and go to full throttle while stopped, or making a low speed maneuver, like parking.
Driver error was the only explanation that really fit the facts.
I must disagree. I think you may have the some confusion of the Audi case with the Ford Bronco jumping-into-gear case.
As someone who owned one of the cars in question, I was quite interested in the details. It was not claimed that the car would jump into gear. It was claimed that the car would suddenly accelerate, and that the brakes would not stop the car - the the pedal would not even move.
My experience matched this exactly. The car's cruse control caused unintentional acceleration, and the brake pedal could not be moved due to the high intake manifold pressure leaking past the check valve into the brake booster.
Sadly, it was claimed that the drivers were in error, and must have been pressing the accelerator pedal, rather than the brake pedal. There may have been cases where this was true, but not in all of them. I demonstrated to the dealer that the brakes would not work when turbo boost was high. They replaced the check valve and this action restored proper operation of the brakes.
I believe what you remember was the PR. My Audi 5000 Turbo cruse control went to full throttle on an interstate highway. My feet were not on the pedal, as I was on cruse control. When I turned off the cruse control (dashboard switch) the engine slowed. I never was able to reproduce the error. I have always wondered if it was a RF issues, perhaps from tuckers with hopped-up CB radios. Not sure if the German engineers would have knowledge that US truckers commonly modify their radios for increased power.
I had an Audi 5000 Turbo, and the cruse control went to full throttle. I was on an interstate highway, so I had some time to work out what the issue was. Never could reproduce the error, so I suspect an RF issues. Perhaps truckers with hopped-up CB radios, which may be a US-only issue.
I used to own an Audi 5000 Turbo, and while driving on the highway, it suddenly went to full throttle. The cruse control was the problem - when I turned off the dashboard switch, I was able to regain control. And the brakes would not work because the vacuum assist check valve was worn, thus the turbo boost worked against the brakes. With both feet, I could not get the pedal to move at all. But once the manifold pressure dropped, I was able to use the brakes.
THe NHTSA conclusion is wrong, in my opinion, based on my experience.
You're right on, but you do your argument a disservice by speaking down to the people who want the "comfort of not thinking".
Yes, you are correct. It was not my intent, but that is indeed how it seems to come across. I feel the same way about my motorcycle. I have to be able to operate the controls and not really think about the bike. I have to focus on turns, bumps, holes and jumps... and the other guys I'm racing. So your point is spot-on.
The iPad is not a computer - it is an information appliance.
Sure it has computer components, but it is not meant to be a general-purpose computer. It is a sealed-box with tightly controlled access to tools and data. It is aimed at the same crowd that buys a TV and pays for a cable connection. They can only choose what is being offered to them.
This has been Job's dream since before the first Mac, when Jeff Raskin convinced him that computers were too hard for non-technical people to use. The smart thing about this design is (like a TV) it just works. Most people will accept the limitations, because too much freedom may not be a good thing. These are the same people who run as admin on a Windows PC, and click on any little thing that pops up. Their "freedom" turns their PC into brick in short order. So a limited device that just works is fine for them.
I'll wait for the more open clones to appear and do what I want. Apple is rightly aimed at the crowd that is willing to cash for the comfort of not thinking. The thinkers/doers will wait for something more open. This is not a product meant for us.
I'd guess you are seeing a bot-net attack. The bot-net army would have the greatest numbers in IT-heavy countries (US, India, China). The command structure would cause them all to attack at (roughly) the same time, regardless of time zone.
The real reason to shoot RAW is the world of post-processing options that shooting RAW presents you. Because of the 12 bits of color depth you have more latitude with playing with the exposure controls; if you make sure that you don't overexpose anything (i.e. you "expose for the highlights") you can compress the dynamic range a bit to bring out more detail in the dark areas. Because white balance hasn't been applied yet, you can change white balance post-processing losslessly. (There's software that will give you white-balance controls over JPEG pictures in a similar manner, but it's lossy.)
Agreed. You've added more detail than I did, when I said "the JPEG file has less data (8-bit vs. 12 to 14 bit RAW) and suffers when heavy post processing is applied."
I have a habit of describing how a watch works when people simply want to know the time. Overcompensating, I left out lots of detail. Perhaps I oversimplified.
But 16-bit-per-pixel (actually 3x16bpp=48bpp) editing is not lossless. Generally the loss of quality is not visible, but not in all cases. But as you point out, its WAY better then 24bit (3x8bit) JPEGs.
My hope is that RAW conversion is included with the base package. I've suggested GIMP for beginners on a budget, then watched them dump it because it couldn't read RAW. Not everyone knows how to look for plug-ins, or even know plug-ins exist.
Unbelievable? You don't know many photographers, I take it. Open source is nearly invisible to that group.
Most of the attention is focused on Photoshop, followed by LightRoom and Aperture. The OEM products (like Nikon's Capture NX) fit into the also-ran category, with all the other products finding it hard to gain any attention at all.
I run Linux and BSD servers, yet I had no idea GIMP had RAW plugins. I only use GIMP (actually GimpShop) on occasion. But professional photographers (and I am one) need a complete workflow package, and that doesn't exist on Linux (as far as I know). That includes RAW conversion, editing, asset management, and print control and accounting. There's a reason most pros use Macs for that stuff. When you pay US$1000 for a set of ink cartridges and by paper in 100 ft rolls, you look for ways to control your costs and account for product usage.
But I want to be able to point beginners at open source software, and was hoping GIMP would be able to support RAW conversion. Frankly, I wasn't paying much attention to where it all stood, so the responses have been helpful.
Great news. For those who don't know, a digital camera's sensor is actually a monochrome sensor. It is not a true color sensor (except for Sigma cameras). Each seperate sensor cell (sensel) has a colored filter placed over it. So the color is actually calculated by compariing each sensel's value with the adjacent sensels. Thus the demosaic process is very important.
All digital cameras have a built-in processor that processes the raw data the creates a JPEG file. But the JPEG file has less data (8-bit vs. 12 to 14 bit RAW) and suffers when heavy post processing is applied. Thus most pros shoot in raw, as you can image PhotoShop, Lightroom, Aperture and others can do a much better job than the built-in processor.
The availability of a RAW converter for Linux is a big deal. Without it, Linux is very limited it its usefulness to photographers.
Might GIMP soon include RAW conversion? I sure hope so.
IPv4 will last a lot longer than expected or desired. Short term, the price of a fixed IP address will shoot up like a rocket. So why would an ISP want to spend money to devalue that?
This will drive a new method of finding a way to link a URL to a non-static IP address, and the change in the flow of money will make a lot of us think "why didn't I think of that?"
Hey, most people just Google the site name anyway, so as long as you tell Google what today's IP address is, you don't need static.
So they want money for art created BEFORE the government even existed. I can see the lawyers pointing out that those artists were not citizens of the current government.
Say, will they attempt to get royalties on the images of the Alamo?
It took a long time for me to find that spot on my GF, but when I did, it opened the floodgates. Shortly afterward, some of her friends started hitting on me. She's not my GF anymore.
I can't find the spot everytime. But I find it often enough that my "research" concludes that it exists. Not sure if every girl is "wired" so that it works.
Of course, we need a car analogy for/.
I guess it is like my old Chevy. There was this place on the starter where you could put a screwdriver and short the connection between the solenoid and positive terminal, and it would start the engine. It's not a place identified on any drawing, but anyone who has done the trick knows the spot.
If they don't patent it, someone else will. If they allow everbody to use the patent, then it is still not evil, even if they charge a nominal fee to do so.
Once you publicly show the invention, someone else can't patent it. Well, it is supposed to work that way.
Well, I'm not really bashing. I'm just asking. I actually like Google. But to simply patent the idea of point cooling seems to be stretching it a bit.
If IBM did this, we'd all understand - they are in the hardware business. But for Google to go to the trouble to patent it, seems odd. I'm trying to understand their motivation, and if it is simply to force Yahoo and others to spend more money for power, then I'm not sure it passes the smell test.
Think of how much power data centers all over the world use, and you understand the ramifications.
And I only ask, because Google has their "do no evil" policy.
Slashdot Mirror
And Audi had a higher incident rate as well, and that was confirmed to be driver error.
The confirmation was incorrect. I owned an Audi Turbo 5000 and while going down a highway at 70mph on cruse control it began to accelerate. My feet were not touching the pedals.
A flaw in the check valve prevented the brakes from working while boost was positive. Turning off the dashboard switch cleared the fault.
My experience is the car had an issue. I suspect a hopped-up CB radio used by a passing truck triggered the event. Do they use CB radios in Japan or Europe?
We hire people to solve problems. Somebody who owns the problem figures out they need a warm body to solve it. They spec the position and ask HR for a few applicants.
HR does not hire - they reject. For the 5 candidates, they have about 50 to 500 resumes to go through. Thus they look for any reason to reject the resume. When they get down to about 20, they pick the best 10 and submit them to the manager. The manager selects 5 of the 10 that are of interest. The interview process begins. Thus sending resumes nets you a 2% - 0.2% chance. Does this match your experience?
But you can bypass the system. Find the company you want to work for. Learn what they do, and what problems they have. Identify a problem you can solve. Find the manager that owns that problem. Contact them (best in person) and show them that you know the company, the problem, and show how you can solve it. If you nail it, the manager takes you to HR and tells them to hire you.
I kid you not - this has worked for me several times. I never worry about getting a job, no matter how bad the economy is.
Read the book "What color is your Parachute" if you need a step-by-step guide.
Remember "Blue Pill" - the hardware-virtualization-based root kit proof? Turning off HV prevents that type of root kit from being installed. Actually, not a bad idea. Keep it off unless it is needed.
Hey, I just launched a new BotNet on 127.0.0.1 so if anyone wants to
****** CARRIER LOST *******
Uh.... I have two state time trial championships, and finished fourth in my class at the American Mountain Bike Championships. Top cyclists are pretty smart people, and you have to be to get your body in the kind of shape to perform at that level.
A friend who has won over 6 state championships says the strongest guys doesn't always with, but the smartest strong guy usually does. He fits that description to a T.
"Ideas worth spreading"... but not spreading very far... since they choose to use Silverlight. WTF?
I only have Silverlight installed on one of my 10 machines. And I honestly can't remember which one it is on. Can't say that I found any issues with it, but my interest in keeping my installed software stack low means I will keep it off most machines. It is rare to encounter a site that needs it, so it stays off.
So we have another possibly good idea from Microsoft technical that gets screwed by their marketing and management. Microsoft has become the new Xerox. See the history of Xerox PARC if you don't understand that comment.
I'll be offering a kit, soon. It will include a ball peed hammer, a sticker and a map. Simple - easy to use:
1 - place sticker on head at location indicated
2 - Aim hammer at sticker
3 - strike briskly - repeat if necessary
4 - bliss - if not for you, then perhaps others
Order one today at w w w . I want to strike myself in the head with a hammer to achieve bliss . com
Some years ago, when the Audi 5000 (IIRC) was under fire for a similar problem, one of the car magazines (Car & Driver, IIRC) did a test where they compared the stopping distance from 60 mph at closed throttle (the normal case) to that at full throttle. They reported the stopping distances were identical -- the brakes were so much stronger than the engine that the engine's torque had no effect at all.
I used to own an Audi 5000 Turbo. Indeed, the brakes were much stronger than the engine. But if the check valve between the intake manifold and the brake booster failed, then you would have high pressure air where you needed sub-atmospheric air, resulting in an inability to operate the brakes.
This happened to me. If the engine had positive boost, you couldn't budge the brake petal.
So while the Car & Driver magazine was correct for a car in perfect shape, their test did not show what would happen with the combination of a worn check valve and a turbo engine.
Oh yeah - one day the cruse control made the car suddenly accelerate, and with a worn check valve I found myself in a runaway Audi with not brakes. Glad it had a on/off switch on the dashboard.
I don't think your incident relates to the claims which prompted the recall. The claims were that the cars would jump into gear by themselves and go to full throttle while stopped, or making a low speed maneuver, like parking.
Driver error was the only explanation that really fit the facts.
I must disagree. I think you may have the some confusion of the Audi case with the Ford Bronco jumping-into-gear case.
As someone who owned one of the cars in question, I was quite interested in the details. It was not claimed that the car would jump into gear. It was claimed that the car would suddenly accelerate, and that the brakes would not stop the car - the the pedal would not even move.
My experience matched this exactly. The car's cruse control caused unintentional acceleration, and the brake pedal could not be moved due to the high intake manifold pressure leaking past the check valve into the brake booster.
Sadly, it was claimed that the drivers were in error, and must have been pressing the accelerator pedal, rather than the brake pedal. There may have been cases where this was true, but not in all of them. I demonstrated to the dealer that the brakes would not work when turbo boost was high. They replaced the check valve and this action restored proper operation of the brakes.
I believe what you remember was the PR. My Audi 5000 Turbo cruse control went to full throttle on an interstate highway. My feet were not on the pedal, as I was on cruse control. When I turned off the cruse control (dashboard switch) the engine slowed. I never was able to reproduce the error. I have always wondered if it was a RF issues, perhaps from tuckers with hopped-up CB radios. Not sure if the German engineers would have knowledge that US truckers commonly modify their radios for increased power.
I had an Audi 5000 Turbo, and the cruse control went to full throttle. I was on an interstate highway, so I had some time to work out what the issue was. Never could reproduce the error, so I suspect an RF issues. Perhaps truckers with hopped-up CB radios, which may be a US-only issue.
I used to own an Audi 5000 Turbo, and while driving on the highway, it suddenly went to full throttle. The cruse control was the problem - when I turned off the dashboard switch, I was able to regain control. And the brakes would not work because the vacuum assist check valve was worn, thus the turbo boost worked against the brakes. With both feet, I could not get the pedal to move at all. But once the manifold pressure dropped, I was able to use the brakes.
THe NHTSA conclusion is wrong, in my opinion, based on my experience.
You're right on, but you do your argument a disservice by speaking down to the people who want the "comfort of not thinking".
Yes, you are correct. It was not my intent, but that is indeed how it seems to come across. I feel the same way about my motorcycle. I have to be able to operate the controls and not really think about the bike. I have to focus on turns, bumps, holes and jumps... and the other guys I'm racing. So your point is spot-on.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
The iPad is not a computer - it is an information appliance.
Sure it has computer components, but it is not meant to be a general-purpose computer. It is a sealed-box with tightly controlled access to tools and data. It is aimed at the same crowd that buys a TV and pays for a cable connection. They can only choose what is being offered to them.
This has been Job's dream since before the first Mac, when Jeff Raskin convinced him that computers were too hard for non-technical people to use. The smart thing about this design is (like a TV) it just works. Most people will accept the limitations, because too much freedom may not be a good thing. These are the same people who run as admin on a Windows PC, and click on any little thing that pops up. Their "freedom" turns their PC into brick in short order. So a limited device that just works is fine for them.
I'll wait for the more open clones to appear and do what I want. Apple is rightly aimed at the crowd that is willing to cash for the comfort of not thinking. The thinkers/doers will wait for something more open. This is not a product meant for us.
I'd guess you are seeing a bot-net attack. The bot-net army would have the greatest numbers in IT-heavy countries (US, India, China). The command structure would cause them all to attack at (roughly) the same time, regardless of time zone.
Or maybe you've been slashdotted.
I've never looked at digiKam. Looks pretty cool. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.
The real reason to shoot RAW is the world of post-processing options that shooting RAW presents you. Because of the 12 bits of color depth you have more latitude with playing with the exposure controls; if you make sure that you don't overexpose anything (i.e. you "expose for the highlights") you can compress the dynamic range a bit to bring out more detail in the dark areas. Because white balance hasn't been applied yet, you can change white balance post-processing losslessly. (There's software that will give you white-balance controls over JPEG pictures in a similar manner, but it's lossy.)
Agreed. You've added more detail than I did, when I said "the JPEG file has less data (8-bit vs. 12 to 14 bit RAW) and suffers when heavy post processing is applied."
I have a habit of describing how a watch works when people simply want to know the time. Overcompensating, I left out lots of detail. Perhaps I oversimplified.
But 16-bit-per-pixel (actually 3x16bpp=48bpp) editing is not lossless. Generally the loss of quality is not visible, but not in all cases. But as you point out, its WAY better then 24bit (3x8bit) JPEGs.
My hope is that RAW conversion is included with the base package. I've suggested GIMP for beginners on a budget, then watched them dump it because it couldn't read RAW. Not everyone knows how to look for plug-ins, or even know plug-ins exist.
Unbelievable? You don't know many photographers, I take it. Open source is nearly invisible to that group.
Most of the attention is focused on Photoshop, followed by LightRoom and Aperture. The OEM products (like Nikon's Capture NX) fit into the also-ran category, with all the other products finding it hard to gain any attention at all.
I run Linux and BSD servers, yet I had no idea GIMP had RAW plugins. I only use GIMP (actually GimpShop) on occasion. But professional photographers (and I am one) need a complete workflow package, and that doesn't exist on Linux (as far as I know). That includes RAW conversion, editing, asset management, and print control and accounting. There's a reason most pros use Macs for that stuff. When you pay US$1000 for a set of ink cartridges and by paper in 100 ft rolls, you look for ways to control your costs and account for product usage.
But I want to be able to point beginners at open source software, and was hoping GIMP would be able to support RAW conversion. Frankly, I wasn't paying much attention to where it all stood, so the responses have been helpful.
Great news. For those who don't know, a digital camera's sensor is actually a monochrome sensor. It is not a true color sensor (except for Sigma cameras). Each seperate sensor cell (sensel) has a colored filter placed over it. So the color is actually calculated by compariing each sensel's value with the adjacent sensels. Thus the demosaic process is very important.
All digital cameras have a built-in processor that processes the raw data the creates a JPEG file. But the JPEG file has less data (8-bit vs. 12 to 14 bit RAW) and suffers when heavy post processing is applied. Thus most pros shoot in raw, as you can image PhotoShop, Lightroom, Aperture and others can do a much better job than the built-in processor.
The availability of a RAW converter for Linux is a big deal. Without it, Linux is very limited it its usefulness to photographers.
Might GIMP soon include RAW conversion? I sure hope so.
IPv4 will last a lot longer than expected or desired. Short term, the price of a fixed IP address will shoot up like a rocket. So why would an ISP want to spend money to devalue that?
This will drive a new method of finding a way to link a URL to a non-static IP address, and the change in the flow of money will make a lot of us think "why didn't I think of that?"
Hey, most people just Google the site name anyway, so as long as you tell Google what today's IP address is, you don't need static.
So they want money for art created BEFORE the government even existed. I can see the lawyers pointing out that those artists were not citizens of the current government.
Say, will they attempt to get royalties on the images of the Alamo?
It took a long time for me to find that spot on my GF, but when I did, it opened the floodgates. Shortly afterward, some of her friends started hitting on me. She's not my GF anymore.
I can't find the spot everytime. But I find it often enough that my "research" concludes that it exists. Not sure if every girl is "wired" so that it works.
Of course, we need a car analogy for /.
I guess it is like my old Chevy. There was this place on the starter where you could put a screwdriver and short the connection between the solenoid and positive terminal, and it would start the engine. It's not a place identified on any drawing, but anyone who has done the trick knows the spot.
If they don't patent it, someone else will. If they allow everbody to use the patent, then it is still not evil, even if they charge a nominal fee to do so.
Once you publicly show the invention, someone else can't patent it. Well, it is supposed to work that way.
Well, I'm not really bashing. I'm just asking. I actually like Google. But to simply patent the idea of point cooling seems to be stretching it a bit.
If IBM did this, we'd all understand - they are in the hardware business. But for Google to go to the trouble to patent it, seems odd. I'm trying to understand their motivation, and if it is simply to force Yahoo and others to spend more money for power, then I'm not sure it passes the smell test.
Think of how much power data centers all over the world use, and you understand the ramifications.
And I only ask, because Google has their "do no evil" policy.