That's a neat idea; i presume you are talking about a mail handling rule/filter on my 'secure email' that forwards the messages to my 'regular email'.
It would be a fair bit of work to setup and test and I worry it would be much too brittle -- I mean how often do i reset passwords or login from new computer; and the vendor could change the message template at anytime, resulting in the notifications not coming through, or the wrong ones coming through.
On the otherhand, it does suggest an idea... to have it forward my phone a generic notification when i get email to the secure email from certain domains. That could work. Not perfect I'd have no way of telling without logging into the secure mail whether it was important or just some marketing blather. Hmm... I could have it preserve the subject line though... and strip the body.
We might have something workable as a strategy here... although getting it to run server side will be a hassle. Looks like server-side mail rules in outlook aren't robust enough; I might be able to do something with exchange/office365 though... but that's a bit of a PITA. For the other mail I'd want this for, its a personal account, but IMAP, hosted by a hosting company ( i ran my own mail server for years, but its more of a pain than I care for; and just not worth my time for one or two accounts anymore) anyhow -- I doubt I'll be able to get any robust server side message scripting for that either.
a simple "Forward subject line only" would be so trivial to have too... I'm almost surprised it doesn't seem to already exist as one of the canned options.
The biggest problem with a passphrase is that entering it every time you get a text message is obnoxious and intolerable from a usability standpoint.
Your solution of turning it off before a possible event is a step in the right direction, but it's not reliable enough. It works ok when you get pulled over... you have lots of time between the lights flashing and officer at your window. But for a lot of situations you don't have that luxury. For example, if it is lost or stolen it'll still be turned on, or if you are arrested just walking down the street...
Stuff like samsung knox has the potential to be a good middle ground -- a secure container within your phone. So you can fingerprint/ short PIN to access your phone, GPS, SMS and your pay-by-phone parking app, etc but have your documents and pictures and work email still behind a passphrase.
(I'm not sure how good knox is in particular, but the concept at least I think is a good idea.) And I realize for some people even the SMS and parking app they want behind the passphrase because it'll reveal who they talked to or where they parked etc... I get that. Security is always a trade off between convenience and security... for me always passphrase is too obnoxious to use -- I tried it, while only fingerprint or 4-digit PIN is far too weak to protect say, my email (more from theives than from law enforcement... ) the potential damage a theif could do with my phone is scary.
The only reasonable solution with current phones is to not have much of anything on them. So for example, the email account I have have linked to the domain registrations and various other online services and resources I have access to is NOT on my phone. This is frequently inconvenient and bit ironic -- on the one hand I WANT the notifications of any activity on those accounts immediately notified to me, but the risk of someone getting into my phone (e.g. by observing me enter my PIN, and the stealing it) and being able to take control of those accounts via the linked email and 2FA which is tied to that number... is too great.
Maybe knox type solutions would be a solution... i just haven't actually had the time to try it.
It'd be nice though if various cloud service providers would let you register a separate notification email in addition to the admin email. So that I could receive notifications like 'a user has logged in from a new computer to your account..." on my phone without that being the email address being the one that can also be used to retrieve/reset login and password credentials.
start Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines! I often start my car before I put on my seat belt. I had trouble starting my car this morning, but it started fine yesterday. It usually starts fine.
end: The exam ends at 3. Classes ended early today. I bet she will end the relationship after the trip. We must end the war on drugs.
Your opinion does not agree with the conclusions of the HTSA report.
Uh, yeah, it does.
Conclusion is that indeed some periode of inattentiveness exist but rarely bigger than 5 sec. So the 7 seconds in which the driver did not react to the truck crossing his path is very exceptional.
Wow. No it didn't really say that at all. Look at figure 10.
ACC driving -- that's just with adaptive cruise control. people paid attention. 94.59% of the time people looked away from the road it was under 3 seconds. The remain 5.41% was under 5. They never looked away more than 7.
Add "lane assist" (LAADS with no counter measures) and suddenly 8.33% of the time people looked away it was for more than 7 seconds. That's huge... HUGE... like 1 in 12 times you glanced off the road it was for more than 8 seconds.
So Tesla added counter-measures (that's features to alert the driver they aren't paying attention); that's the LAADS column. And that made a big difference, down to 3.72% from 8.33% for glances longer than 7 seconds. But that's still around 1 in 25 glances off the road were *longer* than 7 seconds. 1 in 25 is not "very exceptional"... sure its a lot better than 1 in 12. And 1 in 4 glances off the road are more than 3 seconds. Compared to one in 20 with just adaptive cruise control.
That tells you that yes, I was right, that absolutely, all the data shows that drivers are much less attentive and engaged than they are if they have to steer themselves, even with counter measures.
Secondly they looked at the amount of accidents and collisions of Tesla's before and after the Autopilot was introduced. They fell by 40 percent.
That's not relevant, because what I proposed as an alternative would retain all the collision avoidance benefits.
In my opinion a good attentive driver, even with automatic systems engaged, will still keep his attention where it belongs: on the road.
The study clearly shows a substantial drop off in engagement. Even with counter measures the number of off road glances more than 7 seconds goes from never to 1 in 25. And the number of off road glances exceeding 3 seconds nearly quadruples.
Consider how many off-road glances drivers collectively make -- LAADS systems represent a MASSIVE drop in how much attention is being paid to the road. The LAADS systems may well enable that to be relatively safe, but don't kid yourself for a second that drivers are just as engaged with driving with the systems on as they are without them. The data you cited doesn't bear that out at all.
Under no circumstances does this technology make you less safe.
I disagree.
it does TOO MUCH, to the point that even a safe driver CANNOT realistically be expected to be continually engaged with the act of driving for extended periods of time, and that makes him less safe.
If I am driving today, even on a highway, the constant micro-corrections in steering help keep me engaged.
Tesla's autopilot takes that engagement away, Musk himself bragged about 'hardly touching the wheel' on a long trip. After hours of not *needing* to pay attention to the road, and not needing to do *anything*, its pretty easy to imagine it would be pretty easy to be much less engaged, and more easily distracted, and therefore less 'safe'.
And again, Its absolutely not a question of choosing "Tesla autopilot as it is today" or "nothing"... we could compare "Tesla autopilot today" with a version that had the *same* collision avoidance features, and that would, if it engaged to avoid a collision would only automatically drive enough pull the car over safely... so you had ALL the accident avoidance benefits of Tesla autopilot, but couldn't rely on it to drive for you while you watched a movie, because if it had to brake for you, or it had to correct your lane.... and it didn't detect that you were paying attention by making your own adjustments, then it would simply pull over.
Tesla is touting its ability to drive for you and the ability is enabled for it to drive for you with virtually no input from the driver. And that is LESS SAFE then if it only used its abilities to avoid accident and safely pull over.
And wait... there's more...for example, two (or more) separately fertilized zygotes can (egg+sperm) themselves fuse, producing a chimera. (they'd be fraternal twins if they didn't fuse). The result of fusing though is that some of your cells have one set of DNA, some have another... and as should be obvious, some of your cells may not even have the same parents; if the sperm came from different individuals...)
1) How often you do you see people using digital cameras instead of phone cameras? Enough that every computer needs to accommodate them?
No. Not every computer. Just the top of the line pro series.
2) Every camera over $200 will have Wi-Fi, and it's been that way for years now. It's very easy/automatic to use. Every DSLR has WiFi, even the cheap ones.
Yes. But who gives a shit? I don't want to take 2 hours transferring photos via an adhoc wifi network, using a system that ties up my camera while it's happening. Popping out a card, popping in a new one, and carrying on.
3) Low end p&s cameras have sensors barely any larger than a smartphone. Regardless of their merits, though, empirically people have transitioned away.
True. Not sure what your argument here is though.
4) By that reasoning, why did they get rid of the VGA port, or the DVD drive? Having little-used ports be available as a cheap dongle seems like an intelligent compromise.
The DVD drive is quite fragile, has a lot of moving parts, and takes up a lot of space. An external USB drive is a reasonably sensible compromise for those people who still need it. The SD card reader is a tiny slot that a lot of macbook pro owners aren't even aware of. It's ridiculous to compare it to a DVD drive.
As for the VGA port... what is your argument? A laptop is more useful if it has common display ports. Period. There are quite a few of them and it's reasonable to support only the most common, most universal -- so an argument can be made for VGA -- a lot of people would still find that useful. Nevertheless, VGA is a fading fast and in 2017 it should have HDMI. It's reasonable to need an adapter for VGA but its ridiculous to need an adapter for HDMI.
5) Micro-SD cards are sometimes used for phones, and this makes them more popular than SD cards.
The cool think about micro SD is that they work with SD adapter trays. If all need is microsd, you can leave the adapter tray in the slot. If you want to make the argument that it would be handy for a pro series laptop to have a microsd card slot TOO... then sure, I agree.
My wife has the pro and it's awesome. I agree that they should have had a USB 3.0, but really it doesn't get in the way of her work
I have the previous generation pro. And I find the lack of gigabit ethernet idiotic; and I hate carrying around a stupid dongle for it. But otherwise i like it.
I also have the generation before that, and it is getting dated now in terms of performance. But it was basically perfect -- and the only reason my kids are still using it is that with the replacement battery, SSD and RAM upgrade it's still got enough oomph to be useful. But that is all over now with the new unit... your wife certainly won't be breathing any extra life into her new pro with any upgrades down the road.
And what else does the he new one do? Still no ethernet. No HDMI. No magsafe. No SDCard. No escape key. No USB ports. We get USB-C which is cool and will be increasingly useful in the future and every laptop you buy today should have a one or even two, but like most of us I live in the present, where the lack of the other ports is a pretty big deal.
The new macbook pro, as I've said before, is a terrific update to the macbook air line. I'm glad your wife likes hers and I can understand why. It's a fine laptop if you wanted a newer better faster macbook air.
But its a gimped piece of crap with extremely limited options if you wanted a pro laptop.
As expected the OLED stuff scores 10/10 but *some* of the full-array stuff scores really well. So does ALL dimming irritate you or just the bad stuff? Of course that's not a comprehensive list... but it does show the range of scores.
Also FWIW a number of TVs also have a menu option to turn it off or adjust the effect so you can get 'some dimming' but not as much... which will reduce the effect -- less 'contrast' but less artifacts.
So you have some options if you want 4K but or the TV otherwise impresses you besides the local dimming.
It's a shame I can't get the same high-quality air I used to get last century.
If you could have their air, but also had to live with their technology and medicine too would you still take the trade?
Meanwhile, depending on where you live, 100 years ago was pretty filthy... London air quality in 1917.... sulpher dioxide and soot from the smokestacks... and that was on a good day... 100 years ago puts you right in the middle of World War I... a little soot in your air would be right pleasant compared to the 50,000 tons of chlorine, phosgene, mustard, and other gases that some of your 100-year-ago contemporaries would have been dealing with.
Meanwhile, smog and acid rain, are on the decline in North America thanks to environmental regulation and pollution controls... and with the mass market arrival of electric city air quality is actually poised to get even better in the future.
I actually bought a new TV the day before yesterday. My previous one was 6-7 years old. I looked at OLED, I ogled the black levels, and then I bought a 4K LED backlit LCD with full dimming* that was 15" larger for quite a bit less.
* yeah still not nearly as good as OLED, but very good blacks for LED LCD.
The new screen looks great. The technology is proven. It would have cost me a LOT more to get an OLED TV at the same size.
No, because how does Microsoft make any money off someone who upgrades their graphics card and storage, but who doesn't buy a new Windows license?
Office 365 (slightly tongue in cheek)
And maybe a Windows 365 Enterprise subscription (which if it lets a single user put Windows Enterprise (with control over updates, no telemetry, etc etc...) on his gaming desktop, his laptop, and his HTPC... for one price (the same way office 365 works) that might well be alluring to "people who care".
While the "people who don't" will run home/pro and suffer Microsoft's "management" of their PC.
more and more PC owners are learning they don't need to ditch their 3 year old computer and can instead opt to upgrade it. SSD, more RAM, and a new graphics card and their old machine is better than new.
OTOH... more and more mac owners are learning that their new Mac will only ever have what it shipped from the factory with, and that the ram upgrade and SSD upgrade that makes the stuff from 2010 still usable today... is NOT going to be a pattern that repeats anymore.
Right now, most windows gear is still upgradable... but desktops are shrinking and ultrabooks are growing... so the tipping point is coming. Enthusiasts / gamers may still have the option to upgrade their 'rigs' but mom and pop might be stuck with whatever is soldered onto their ultrabook...
Really you haven't noticed a liberal-green alliance?
Of course I have. But it's tempered by other competing interests.
1/3rd of all coal industry spending on senate candidates went to democrats. 20% of coal industry spending on congress went to democrats. Given the makeup of the houses they only need a minority of democrats in their pocket to further their agenda.
And that's my point. They have MORE than enough influence to keep the liberal-green alliance from running amok.
Getting a pay cut isn't going to motivate him. He clearly isn't bringing his A game... he needs to be incentivized; perhaps a more aggressive bonus structure, or more stock options? Maybe he needs a big raise? You need to do this to attract and retain talent!/sarcasm
For every time solar-Bob called greenboy-Al looking for some tit-for-tat for his solar slush fund there was old-coal-face-joe calling Senator open-for-business telling him there was 5 million dollars for his PAC if this 'green nonsense' would go away and he could get a fast track approval to grandfather running his smokestacks under 1950 standards because it would cost 20 million bucks to update them... or whatever.
The idea that the 'green lobby' could have such overwhelming influence over policy in the face of all all the opposed lobbies, to the point that they government would be running a decades long campaign to literally suppress and fake the science is simply absurd.
Especailly since old-coal-joe ALSO gets billions in taxpayer subsidies and support... so why aren't they whitewashing the science to show minimal impact? Al Gore isn't the only PAC open for business, and old-coal-joe has a LOT of money to spend...
A liberal-green-conspiracy just lacks credibility.
I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?"
Not that I can see. The military industrial complex is of course HIGHLY motivated to sell us more weapons to the point of paying whatever it costs to install congress critters friendly to that agenda; and there really is no highly organized 'counter' complex opposed to this situation.
The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
Itty bitty teeny tiny potatoes compared to big oil/coal/fossil, automotive, and every other industry that produces anything substantially non-green -- and they are in direct opposition to anything 'green'; and would be (and are) happy to fight tooth and nail to dismantle the EPA and every enviro-regulation or treaty on the books.
Heck even think of Gore himself.
Right. But for every gore there's 7 Rex Tillersons, 6 Exxon Mobils, FII-IIVE fracking com-pan-ies, 4 hydro dams, 3 french fried hens, 2 turtle soup makers, and a partridge in a pear tree fighting to keep it business as usual.
"Green" is the liberal slush fund just as "defense" was the conservative slush fund.
Its simply NOT comparable to the military industrial complex; because the vested opposition to the 'green' is vast, organized, and extremely well monied. The opposition to the military-industrial-complex is a few hippies... its laughable to suggest that 'green' has the same un-contested level of clout.
They also happen to be the multi-billion dollar industries that each of the parties chose to launder very large kickbacks in exchange for campaign contributions. If you haven't noticed that... wow.
If you think the multi-billion dollar green industry is a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-TRILLION dollar industry that is decidely "un-green"... wow. I mean... so-called "liberals" can be bought just like anyone else, and there's plenty of anti-green money lying around.
It just doesn't make credible sense for the AGW crowd to be such a powerful deep rooted conspiracy with such a large and powerful opposition to what it stands for. It's... delusional.
Of course, that won't happen because it would be far too damning to liberals, and might result in criminal charges for the massive fraud against the American people.
Of course, if the collective effort of scientists around the world doesn't convince you, then nothing the administration could release would.
I'm curious though why you think the administration has a vested interest in systemically lying about the climate change science? I mean... what is the profit motive here? I get why tobacco companies funded and undermined cigarette studies; I get why car companies would dodge emission controls; I get why governments don't want to deal with native affairs; or crumbling infrastructure... so what is the motive for the government to go 'big' on climate change? There's plenty of money on the table from 'big oil' to drill-baby-drill, and they don't care who drinks from the trough in support of their business interests... so why is there this big conspiracy to fake climate change?? It's delusional.
I mean, sure, science has gotten things wrong in the past, but its not a conspiracy... its just the scientific process of continual refinement, testing and re-testing claims etc. The brontosaurus was real... then it wasn't... no maybe it is again, but maybe with feathers... that's just the process. And yes, lots of 'bad science' is done, but it eventually washes out as more data is made available and more testing and validation of results is performed, as our knowledge and our techniques improve. So yeah mistakes are made, but betting -against- the latest consensens is not really a winning move. Yet you seem to think that on this ONE issue, not only is science wrong, but its a big conspiracy to fabricate it... by 'liberals' for... reasons?... AND that you, a layperson, know better, despite virtually all the science being in general agreement.
Quite so, but my hypothesis was that that the cellular channel would be for advertising, telemetry, forced software updates, etc. You'd still need to put the TV on your wifi to stream netflix etc.
"Verizon's Mobility Services include wireless voice, text messaging and wireless data packages for both 3G CDMA & 4G LTE. Adding our Mobility Services to your product suite lets you offer variety in voice and data services that keep your customers productive - at the office and on the go. Additionally, you will retain and grow your customer base with Verizonâ(TM)s Mobility Services as the technology platform to deliver IoT applications and solutions."
It won't be free, it will be "free"... the cost will be front loaded into the purchase price; or covered by some other subscription fee, or advertising revenue. How much do you think 1GB of data per unit over a 5 year period is going to cost at wholesale x 1 million units...
It will probably get harder and harder to find a TV without these "smart" features. If you don't want them, just don't give the TV your wifi password.
We are fast approaching a time where the TV will come with built in cellular data, and lifetime subscription (for specific uses). I've already seen several devices that have this scheme... for example a 'cloud punch clock'.
You might have to enter your wifi password to stream 4k from netflix, but it might send its telemetry, get advertising updates, firmware updates, and its cloud 'siri/cortana/google voice recognition stuff' via a separate always-on cellular network connection.
The price of the chipset itself is small in a $2000+ TV; and the cost of prepaid data measured at likely less than 500MB per years for 10 years, bought at wholesale for a million TVs at once... well... that's also going to be pretty small.
Right now the IoT is at least theoretically constrained to our wifi and runs through our firewalls. But we're fast approaching the time where it's just directly connected to the carrier bypassing our home networks entirely.
Indeed, our home networks themselves may become a nerd relic, the way home servers are. Your computer connects to the cloud, your printer connects to the cloud, your TV connects to the cloud... who needs a LAN? Sure a LAN would be faster... but once its good enough the average user will be happy to forgo having to maintain a home network in exchange for 'it just connects to the cloud'.
Double yawn. Niche gimmick, that even the apple faithful are trying to find uses for.
Don't get me wrong there are some uses -- cyclists and a few other places where a wrist device is especially convenient for notifications... and my sister in law loves hers -- her officeplace has a no smartphones while working policy to keep employees from texting etc while they are supposed to be working. The apple watch is one step of ahead of company policy... her phone is neatly put away out of sight, and she can still get messages from friends etc on the watch.
TV
Overpriced and not as good as the more open alternatives. Airplay is nice though, but requires you to be fully enmeshed into the apple ecosystem, which im not. We have a mix of devices and platforms in our home.
several versions of Mac
Sure. If you want a lightweight ultraportable they have lots to choose from. If you want anything else.. an inexpensive durable laptop for students... nope. A powerhouse laptop with lots of ram and connectivity for pros... nope. But a luxury ultraportable with great screen, great battery life (aside from the pro's issues), and no connectivity... they've got 3 lines to choose from.
On the desktop... unmitigated garbage. Overpriced laptops crammed into all-one-screens defeating every possible advantage of desktops... well pro units made to look like garbage cans.
better displays,
They stopped making desktop monitors. The laptop displays from dell etc are just as good... and you can get touchscreens if you want them.
faster SSDs
They aren't that much faster than *other* decent SSDs And they are expensive and soldered in so you can't upgrade them. I'll take a slightly slower one that I can easily replace with a 2TB model in 3 years any time thanks.
free upgrades of iOS and OSX/macOS
And no option to downgrade afterwards if you aren't happen. Even Microsoft, who has gotten so much wrong lately, at least got that right.
Seriously, when was the last time you watched a LibreOffice youtube demo? Or read the word processor documentation?
I don't watch youtube for 99.9% of questions I have. But some people do. I do read the documentation, but I agree most people don't.
However, the 'documentation and support' I was referring to that is made so difficult is precisely the type you are talking about... where 'they ask a technical person'... and the technical person will invariably answer with a list of steps that assume a particular UI. Or they'll fire back a quick email with screenshots... of a particular UI.
They'll never answer with 5 different scenarios for the 5 different UI themes the user might have selected. At best every support converstion starts with... ok... describe your screen to me first so I know what the hell UI you are looking at. Does it have a row of icons at the top? is there a menu bar? Is there a floating panel of icons on the right...? etc... etc?
Inquiries that would have required a trivial email answer...
File Menu -> Settings -> Advanced. check off 'the XYZ'. Click ok.
now require a remote support screensharing session.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a neat idea; i presume you are talking about a mail handling rule/filter on my 'secure email' that forwards the messages to my 'regular email'.
It would be a fair bit of work to setup and test and I worry it would be much too brittle -- I mean how often do i reset passwords or login from new computer; and the vendor could change the message template at anytime, resulting in the notifications not coming through, or the wrong ones coming through.
On the otherhand, it does suggest an idea... to have it forward my phone a generic notification when i get email to the secure email from certain domains. That could work. Not perfect I'd have no way of telling without logging into the secure mail whether it was important or just some marketing blather. Hmm... I could have it preserve the subject line though... and strip the body.
We might have something workable as a strategy here... although getting it to run server side will be a hassle. Looks like server-side mail rules in outlook aren't robust enough; I might be able to do something with exchange/office365 though... but that's a bit of a PITA. For the other mail I'd want this for, its a personal account, but IMAP, hosted by a hosting company ( i ran my own mail server for years, but its more of a pain than I care for; and just not worth my time for one or two accounts anymore) anyhow -- I doubt I'll be able to get any robust server side message scripting for that either.
a simple "Forward subject line only" would be so trivial to have too... I'm almost surprised it doesn't seem to already exist as one of the canned options.
The biggest problem with a passphrase is that entering it every time you get a text message is obnoxious and intolerable from a usability standpoint.
Your solution of turning it off before a possible event is a step in the right direction, but it's not reliable enough. It works ok when you get pulled over ... you have lots of time between the lights flashing and officer at your window. But for a lot of situations you don't have that luxury. For example, if it is lost or stolen it'll still be turned on, or if you are arrested just walking down the street...
Stuff like samsung knox has the potential to be a good middle ground -- a secure container within your phone. So you can fingerprint/ short PIN to access your phone, GPS, SMS and your pay-by-phone parking app, etc but have your documents and pictures and work email still behind a passphrase.
(I'm not sure how good knox is in particular, but the concept at least I think is a good idea.) And I realize for some people even the SMS and parking app they want behind the passphrase because it'll reveal who they talked to or where they parked etc... I get that. Security is always a trade off between convenience and security... for me always passphrase is too obnoxious to use -- I tried it, while only fingerprint or 4-digit PIN is far too weak to protect say, my email (more from theives than from law enforcement... ) the potential damage a theif could do with my phone is scary.
The only reasonable solution with current phones is to not have much of anything on them. So for example, the email account I have have linked to the domain registrations and various other online services and resources I have access to is NOT on my phone. This is frequently inconvenient and bit ironic -- on the one hand I WANT the notifications of any activity on those accounts immediately notified to me, but the risk of someone getting into my phone (e.g. by observing me enter my PIN, and the stealing it) and being able to take control of those accounts via the linked email and 2FA which is tied to that number... is too great.
Maybe knox type solutions would be a solution... i just haven't actually had the time to try it.
It'd be nice though if various cloud service providers would let you register a separate notification email in addition to the admin email. So that I could receive notifications like 'a user has logged in from a new computer to your account..." on my phone without that being the email address being the one that can also be used to retrieve/reset login and password credentials.
"They can't NOT improve. It looks and behaves like a first-year CompSci student's summer project."
~shrug~ It looks like google did when it was still good.
Both are verbs.
start
Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines!
I often start my car before I put on my seat belt.
I had trouble starting my car this morning, but it started fine yesterday. It usually starts fine.
end:
The exam ends at 3.
Classes ended early today.
I bet she will end the relationship after the trip.
We must end the war on drugs.
Your opinion does not agree with the conclusions of the HTSA report.
Uh, yeah, it does.
Conclusion is that indeed some periode of inattentiveness exist but rarely bigger than 5 sec. So the 7 seconds in which the driver did not react to the truck crossing his path is very exceptional.
Wow. No it didn't really say that at all. Look at figure 10.
ACC driving -- that's just with adaptive cruise control. people paid attention. 94.59% of the time people looked away from the road it was under 3 seconds. The remain 5.41% was under 5. They never looked away more than 7.
Add "lane assist" (LAADS with no counter measures) and suddenly 8.33% of the time people looked away it was for more than 7 seconds. That's huge... HUGE... like 1 in 12 times you glanced off the road it was for more than 8 seconds.
So Tesla added counter-measures (that's features to alert the driver they aren't paying attention); that's the LAADS column. And that made a big difference, down to 3.72% from 8.33% for glances longer than 7 seconds. But that's still around 1 in 25 glances off the road were *longer* than 7 seconds. 1 in 25 is not "very exceptional"... sure its a lot better than 1 in 12. And 1 in 4 glances off the road are more than 3 seconds. Compared to one in 20 with just adaptive cruise control.
That tells you that yes, I was right, that absolutely, all the data shows that drivers are much less attentive and engaged than they are if they have to steer themselves, even with counter measures.
Secondly they looked at the amount of accidents and collisions of Tesla's before and after the Autopilot was introduced. They fell by 40 percent.
That's not relevant, because what I proposed as an alternative would retain all the collision avoidance benefits.
In my opinion a good attentive driver, even with automatic systems engaged, will still keep his attention where it belongs: on the road.
The study clearly shows a substantial drop off in engagement. Even with counter measures the number of off road glances more than 7 seconds goes from never to 1 in 25. And the number of off road glances exceeding 3 seconds nearly quadruples.
Consider how many off-road glances drivers collectively make -- LAADS systems represent a MASSIVE drop in how much attention is being paid to the road. The LAADS systems may well enable that to be relatively safe, but don't kid yourself for a second that drivers are just as engaged with driving with the systems on as they are without them. The data you cited doesn't bear that out at all.
Under no circumstances does this technology make you less safe.
I disagree.
it does TOO MUCH, to the point that even a safe driver CANNOT realistically be expected to be continually engaged with the act of driving for extended periods of time, and that makes him less safe.
If I am driving today, even on a highway, the constant micro-corrections in steering help keep me engaged.
Tesla's autopilot takes that engagement away, Musk himself bragged about 'hardly touching the wheel' on a long trip. After hours of not *needing* to pay attention to the road, and not needing to do *anything*, its pretty easy to imagine it would be pretty easy to be much less engaged, and more easily distracted, and therefore less 'safe'.
And again, Its absolutely not a question of choosing "Tesla autopilot as it is today" or "nothing" ... we could compare "Tesla autopilot today" with a version that had the *same* collision avoidance features, and that would, if it engaged to avoid a collision would only automatically drive enough pull the car over safely... so you had ALL the accident avoidance benefits of Tesla autopilot, but couldn't rely on it to drive for you while you watched a movie, because if it had to brake for you, or it had to correct your lane .... and it didn't detect that you were paying attention by making your own adjustments, then it would simply pull over.
Tesla is touting its ability to drive for you and the ability is enabled for it to drive for you with virtually no input from the driver. And that is LESS SAFE then if it only used its abilities to avoid accident and safely pull over.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/
vs
https://www.google.ca/search?t...
It's pretty much his favorite one.
Oh come on, someone had to make this about Trump :p
Your not wrong, but at the same time, not quite right...
You all know a female has an XX chromosome pair, while a male is XY.
Yes! Well ... mostly yes. Some people have XXY and XYY and XXXY, XXYY... and other combinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some people have extra chromosomes in only *some* of their cells ('mosaics')
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And wait... there's more...for example, two (or more) separately fertilized zygotes can (egg+sperm) themselves fuse, producing a chimera. (they'd be fraternal twins if they didn't fuse). The result of fusing though is that some of your cells have one set of DNA, some have another... and as should be obvious, some of your cells may not even have the same parents; if the sperm came from different individuals...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And then not even all your plain jane "XX" are female...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And some females only have a single X...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1) How often you do you see people using digital cameras instead of phone cameras? Enough that every computer needs to accommodate them?
No. Not every computer. Just the top of the line pro series.
2) Every camera over $200 will have Wi-Fi, and it's been that way for years now. It's very easy/automatic to use. Every DSLR has WiFi, even the cheap ones.
Yes. But who gives a shit? I don't want to take 2 hours transferring photos via an adhoc wifi network, using a system that ties up my camera while it's happening. Popping out a card, popping in a new one, and carrying on.
3) Low end p&s cameras have sensors barely any larger than a smartphone. Regardless of their merits, though, empirically people have transitioned away.
True. Not sure what your argument here is though.
4) By that reasoning, why did they get rid of the VGA port, or the DVD drive? Having little-used ports be available as a cheap dongle seems like an intelligent compromise.
The DVD drive is quite fragile, has a lot of moving parts, and takes up a lot of space. An external USB drive is a reasonably sensible compromise for those people who still need it. The SD card reader is a tiny slot that a lot of macbook pro owners aren't even aware of. It's ridiculous to compare it to a DVD drive.
As for the VGA port... what is your argument? A laptop is more useful if it has common display ports. Period. There are quite a few of them and it's reasonable to support only the most common, most universal -- so an argument can be made for VGA -- a lot of people would still find that useful. Nevertheless, VGA is a fading fast and in 2017 it should have HDMI. It's reasonable to need an adapter for VGA but its ridiculous to need an adapter for HDMI.
5) Micro-SD cards are sometimes used for phones, and this makes them more popular than SD cards.
The cool think about micro SD is that they work with SD adapter trays. If all need is microsd, you can leave the adapter tray in the slot. If you want to make the argument that it would be handy for a pro series laptop to have a microsd card slot TOO... then sure, I agree.
My wife has the pro and it's awesome. I agree that they should have had a USB 3.0, but really it doesn't get in the way of her work
I have the previous generation pro. And I find the lack of gigabit ethernet idiotic; and I hate carrying around a stupid dongle for it. But otherwise i like it.
I also have the generation before that, and it is getting dated now in terms of performance. But it was basically perfect -- and the only reason my kids are still using it is that with the replacement battery, SSD and RAM upgrade it's still got enough oomph to be useful. But that is all over now with the new unit... your wife certainly won't be breathing any extra life into her new pro with any upgrades down the road.
And what else does the he new one do? Still no ethernet. No HDMI. No magsafe. No SDCard. No escape key. No USB ports. We get USB-C which is cool and will be increasingly useful in the future and every laptop you buy today should have a one or even two, but like most of us I live in the present, where the lack of the other ports is a pretty big deal.
The new macbook pro, as I've said before, is a terrific update to the macbook air line. I'm glad your wife likes hers and I can understand why. It's a fine laptop if you wanted a newer better faster macbook air.
But its a gimped piece of crap with extremely limited options if you wanted a pro laptop.
There's quite the range of 'local dimming' technology out there; some of its pretty bad... some of its really good.
http://ca.rtings.com/tv/tests/...
As expected the OLED stuff scores 10/10 but *some* of the full-array stuff scores really well. So does ALL dimming irritate you or just the bad stuff? Of course that's not a comprehensive list... but it does show the range of scores.
Also FWIW a number of TVs also have a menu option to turn it off or adjust the effect so you can get 'some dimming' but not as much... which will reduce the effect -- less 'contrast' but less artifacts.
So you have some options if you want 4K but or the TV otherwise impresses you besides the local dimming.
It's a shame I can't get the same high-quality air I used to get last century.
If you could have their air, but also had to live with their technology and medicine too would you still take the trade?
Meanwhile, depending on where you live, 100 years ago was pretty filthy... London air quality in 1917.... sulpher dioxide and soot from the smokestacks... and that was on a good day... 100 years ago puts you right in the middle of World War I ... a little soot in your air would be right pleasant compared to the 50,000 tons of chlorine, phosgene, mustard, and other gases that some of your 100-year-ago contemporaries would have been dealing with.
Meanwhile, smog and acid rain, are on the decline in North America thanks to environmental regulation and pollution controls... and with the mass market arrival of electric city air quality is actually poised to get even better in the future.
I actually bought a new TV the day before yesterday. My previous one was 6-7 years old. I looked at OLED, I ogled the black levels, and then I bought a 4K LED backlit LCD with full dimming* that was 15" larger for quite a bit less.
* yeah still not nearly as good as OLED, but very good blacks for LED LCD.
The new screen looks great. The technology is proven. It would have cost me a LOT more to get an OLED TV at the same size.
No, because how does Microsoft make any money off someone who upgrades their graphics card and storage, but who doesn't buy a new Windows license?
Office 365 (slightly tongue in cheek)
And maybe a Windows 365 Enterprise subscription (which if it lets a single user put Windows Enterprise (with control over updates, no telemetry, etc etc...) on his gaming desktop, his laptop, and his HTPC... for one price (the same way office 365 works) that might well be alluring to "people who care".
While the "people who don't" will run home/pro and suffer Microsoft's "management" of their PC.
more and more PC owners are learning they don't need to ditch their 3 year old computer and can instead opt to upgrade it. SSD, more RAM, and a new graphics card and their old machine is better than new.
OTOH... more and more mac owners are learning that their new Mac will only ever have what it shipped from the factory with, and that the ram upgrade and SSD upgrade that makes the stuff from 2010 still usable today... is NOT going to be a pattern that repeats anymore.
Right now, most windows gear is still upgradable... but desktops are shrinking and ultrabooks are growing... so the tipping point is coming. Enthusiasts / gamers may still have the option to upgrade their 'rigs' but mom and pop might be stuck with whatever is soldered onto their ultrabook...
Really you haven't noticed a liberal-green alliance?
Of course I have. But it's tempered by other competing interests.
1/3rd of all coal industry spending on senate candidates went to democrats. 20% of coal industry spending on congress went to democrats. Given the makeup of the houses they only need a minority of democrats in their pocket to further their agenda.
And that's my point. They have MORE than enough influence to keep the liberal-green alliance from running amok.
The parties don't move in lockstep.
Getting a pay cut isn't going to motivate him. He clearly isn't bringing his A game... he needs to be incentivized; perhaps a more aggressive bonus structure, or more stock options? Maybe he needs a big raise? You need to do this to attract and retain talent! /sarcasm
Again, its about the balance.
For every time solar-Bob called greenboy-Al looking for some tit-for-tat for his solar slush fund there was old-coal-face-joe calling Senator open-for-business telling him there was 5 million dollars for his PAC if this 'green nonsense' would go away and he could get a fast track approval to grandfather running his smokestacks under 1950 standards because it would cost 20 million bucks to update them... or whatever.
The idea that the 'green lobby' could have such overwhelming influence over policy in the face of all all the opposed lobbies, to the point that they government would be running a decades long campaign to literally suppress and fake the science is simply absurd.
Especailly since old-coal-joe ALSO gets billions in taxpayer subsidies and support... so why aren't they whitewashing the science to show minimal impact? Al Gore isn't the only PAC open for business, and old-coal-joe has a LOT of money to spend...
A liberal-green-conspiracy just lacks credibility.
I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?"
Not that I can see. The military industrial complex is of course HIGHLY motivated to sell us more weapons to the point of paying whatever it costs to install congress critters friendly to that agenda; and there really is no highly organized 'counter' complex opposed to this situation.
The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
Itty bitty teeny tiny potatoes compared to big oil/coal/fossil, automotive, and every other industry that produces anything substantially non-green -- and they are in direct opposition to anything 'green'; and would be (and are) happy to fight tooth and nail to dismantle the EPA and every enviro-regulation or treaty on the books.
Heck even think of Gore himself.
Right. But for every gore there's 7 Rex Tillersons, 6 Exxon Mobils, FII-IIVE fracking com-pan-ies, 4 hydro dams, 3 french fried hens, 2 turtle soup makers, and a partridge in a pear tree fighting to keep it business as usual.
"Green" is the liberal slush fund just as "defense" was the conservative slush fund.
Its simply NOT comparable to the military industrial complex; because the vested opposition to the 'green' is vast, organized, and extremely well monied. The opposition to the military-industrial-complex is a few hippies... its laughable to suggest that 'green' has the same un-contested level of clout.
They also happen to be the multi-billion dollar industries that each of the parties chose to launder very large kickbacks in exchange for campaign contributions. If you haven't noticed that ... wow.
If you think the multi-billion dollar green industry is a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-TRILLION dollar industry that is decidely "un-green" ... wow. I mean... so-called "liberals" can be bought just like anyone else, and there's plenty of anti-green money lying around.
It just doesn't make credible sense for the AGW crowd to be such a powerful deep rooted conspiracy with such a large and powerful opposition to what it stands for. It's ... delusional.
Of course, that won't happen because it would be far too damning to liberals, and might result in criminal charges for the massive fraud against the American people.
Of course, if the collective effort of scientists around the world doesn't convince you, then nothing the administration could release would.
I'm curious though why you think the administration has a vested interest in systemically lying about the climate change science? I mean... what is the profit motive here? I get why tobacco companies funded and undermined cigarette studies; I get why car companies would dodge emission controls; I get why governments don't want to deal with native affairs; or crumbling infrastructure... so what is the motive for the government to go 'big' on climate change? There's plenty of money on the table from 'big oil' to drill-baby-drill, and they don't care who drinks from the trough in support of their business interests... so why is there this big conspiracy to fake climate change?? It's delusional.
I mean, sure, science has gotten things wrong in the past, but its not a conspiracy... its just the scientific process of continual refinement, testing and re-testing claims etc. The brontosaurus was real... then it wasn't... no maybe it is again, but maybe with feathers... that's just the process. And yes, lots of 'bad science' is done, but it eventually washes out as more data is made available and more testing and validation of results is performed, as our knowledge and our techniques improve. So yeah mistakes are made, but betting -against- the latest consensens is not really a winning move. Yet you seem to think that on this ONE issue, not only is science wrong, but its a big conspiracy to fabricate it... by 'liberals' for... reasons? ... AND that you, a layperson, know better, despite virtually all the science being in general agreement.
Quite so, but my hypothesis was that that the cellular channel would be for advertising, telemetry, forced software updates, etc. You'd still need to put the TV on your wifi to stream netflix etc.
How do you connect to the "cloud" without a network? Wi-fi is LAN, or are you assuming LAN is only ethernet?
I said cellular. I meant cellular.
Nobody out there is going to give you a free cellular data plan
Yeah. They will. It's already happening.
http://www22.verizon.com/whole...
"Verizon's Mobility Services include wireless voice, text messaging and wireless data packages for both 3G CDMA & 4G LTE. Adding our Mobility Services to your product suite lets you offer variety in voice and data services that keep your customers productive - at the office and on the go. Additionally, you will retain and grow your customer base with Verizonâ(TM)s Mobility Services as the technology platform to deliver IoT applications and solutions."
It won't be free, it will be "free"... the cost will be front loaded into the purchase price; or covered by some other subscription fee, or advertising revenue. How much do you think 1GB of data per unit over a 5 year period is going to cost at wholesale x 1 million units...
It will probably get harder and harder to find a TV without these "smart" features. If you don't want them, just don't give the TV your wifi password.
We are fast approaching a time where the TV will come with built in cellular data, and lifetime subscription (for specific uses). I've already seen several devices that have this scheme... for example a 'cloud punch clock'.
You might have to enter your wifi password to stream 4k from netflix, but it might send its telemetry, get advertising updates, firmware updates, and its cloud 'siri/cortana/google voice recognition stuff' via a separate always-on cellular network connection.
The price of the chipset itself is small in a $2000+ TV; and the cost of prepaid data measured at likely less than 500MB per years for 10 years, bought at wholesale for a million TVs at once... well... that's also going to be pretty small.
Right now the IoT is at least theoretically constrained to our wifi and runs through our firewalls. But we're fast approaching the time where it's just directly connected to the carrier bypassing our home networks entirely.
Indeed, our home networks themselves may become a nerd relic, the way home servers are. Your computer connects to the cloud, your printer connects to the cloud, your TV connects to the cloud... who needs a LAN? Sure a LAN would be faster... but once its good enough the average user will be happy to forgo having to maintain a home network in exchange for 'it just connects to the cloud'.
Apple Pay
Yawn.
Watch
Double yawn. Niche gimmick, that even the apple faithful are trying to find uses for.
Don't get me wrong there are some uses -- cyclists and a few other places where a wrist device is especially convenient for notifications... and my sister in law loves hers -- her officeplace has a no smartphones while working policy to keep employees from texting etc while they are supposed to be working. The apple watch is one step of ahead of company policy... her phone is neatly put away out of sight, and she can still get messages from friends etc on the watch.
TV
Overpriced and not as good as the more open alternatives. Airplay is nice though, but requires you to be fully enmeshed into the apple ecosystem, which im not. We have a mix of devices and platforms in our home.
several versions of Mac
Sure. If you want a lightweight ultraportable they have lots to choose from. If you want anything else.. an inexpensive durable laptop for students... nope. A powerhouse laptop with lots of ram and connectivity for pros... nope. But a luxury ultraportable with great screen, great battery life (aside from the pro's issues), and no connectivity... they've got 3 lines to choose from.
On the desktop... unmitigated garbage. Overpriced laptops crammed into all-one-screens defeating every possible advantage of desktops... well pro units made to look like garbage cans.
better displays,
They stopped making desktop monitors. The laptop displays from dell etc are just as good... and you can get touchscreens if you want them.
faster SSDs
They aren't that much faster than *other* decent SSDs And they are expensive and soldered in so you can't upgrade them. I'll take a slightly slower one that I can easily replace with a 2TB model in 3 years any time thanks.
free upgrades of iOS and OSX/macOS
And no option to downgrade afterwards if you aren't happen. Even Microsoft, who has gotten so much wrong lately, at least got that right.
'ok google' sounds enough like the noises one makes while drowning that maybe it activated on the victims struggles. :p
Seriously, when was the last time you watched a LibreOffice youtube demo? Or read the word processor documentation?
I don't watch youtube for 99.9% of questions I have. But some people do. I do read the documentation, but I agree most people don't.
However, the 'documentation and support' I was referring to that is made so difficult is precisely the type you are talking about... where 'they ask a technical person'... and the technical person will invariably answer with a list of steps that assume a particular UI. Or they'll fire back a quick email with screenshots... of a particular UI.
They'll never answer with 5 different scenarios for the 5 different UI themes the user might have selected. At best every support converstion starts with ... ok... describe your screen to me first so I know what the hell UI you are looking at. Does it have a row of icons at the top? is there a menu bar? Is there a floating panel of icons on the right...? etc... etc?
Inquiries that would have required a trivial email answer...
File Menu -> Settings -> Advanced. check off 'the XYZ'. Click ok.
now require a remote support screensharing session.
I assume the same way Samsung infringed on Apple's patents:
http://static5.gamespot.com/up...