If complaining directly to them doesn't work, you might try griping about them on Twitter. My mother-in-law was able to get Comcast to make good on a bad deal that way.
You know what? You're right! All this excessive Apple coverage sucks!! The only thing that'd relieve the problem is if we had more stories about them, the more useless the better.
Yes, you're exactly right. It happens at my office, too. We have so many hotspots nearby that I have gotten a stability boost by telling it not to auto-change channels.
Any suggestions on how I might be doing it wrong would be appreciated. This is not my area of expertise.
I've heard before that the higher the range of frequency, the harder it is for signals to penetrate things like walls. If we keep advancing along these lines, could this potentially ease our troubles with wifi-over-saturation because we won't be picking up our neighbors' signals?
Reading about apple products on Slashdot is like reading about living under a communist regime, editing the 'truth' for an agenda. Mods? Can I get the word 'Insightful' next to my post?
I hope you had a good trip. (no sarcasm or anything like that intended.)
In the meantime, I'll use the data currently available (testing data), which, while imperfect, at least exists.
The thing is, though, your rationale cancels itself out. They're not market testing, they're "Don't kill humans!" testing.
I was kinda thinking the same thing, but came to a different conclusion. As I mentioned before, the most dangerous thing about the cars will be the looky-loos trying to see it. To that end, I would expect an insurance company to require a modicum of tact and discretion.
I could see somebody standing up and making that argument, it's not a bad one, but I don't think it'd play out for two reasons: 1. In the US, we LOVE having people to blame . We're very lawsuit happy and Google has deep pockets. People will want to be able to blame Google if there's a crash. 2. People want to know to stay clear of these cars. I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if these cars had to have a third different-colored tail light to indicate it's on auto-pilot.
Have you seen the "new driver" or "elderly driver" logo's that Japanese drivers are required to display? While noticeable, they're hardly gaudy. I would expect something similar for any required markings on an Auto-Pilot car. Also, see the old "HOV APPROVED" stickers that used to adorn hybrids here in the states. Clearly visible, not ridiculously so.
I think I'm misreading your post. You're supporting my point.
I didn't see the half-covered tires as all that crazy.
They were. The word 'futuristic' floated around a lot when describing that car. I also recall a couple of times I read about how that was a lesson in branding.
All of my assumptions are based on facts...
None of those facts are anything like: "Google's last car was a sleeper hit. It took word of mouth to gain in popularity because nobody could spot the thing amongst a sea of Prius's and Civics!" It's like bragging about your snake oil being made from 'all natural ingredients'.
Really, I just don't see how a hybrid with covered tires translates into an unsafe auto-pilot car.
You were the one that went down the path that a highly recognizable self-driving car would mean an accident-prone one. I didn't really get it either, that's why I asked you to elaborate.
I frequently pull a gigabyte of data over the network to my laptop to open a scene. In my case, it wouldn't be a 'pro' laptop without an ethernet port.
There are persistent rumors that Apple is going to 'airify' their MacBook Pro line. Following that line of thought, it's assumed that they'll take it to the extreme and not include an ethernet port.
Personally, I think it makes sense that some would think that. But I think they'll realize they'll have trouble calling it a 'pro' laptop without an ethernet port. That said, it is something I'd be double checking for once it's announced.
What kind of shitty company do you work at that doesn't have WiFi?
Well, the wifi where I work now is over-saturated and doesn't work so well. But that's immaterial because my company doesn't let you hit our network from the wifi, you can only go out to the internet on t.
Oh, and lots of places don't actually have wifi, it has nothing to do with the shittiness of the company.
First you complain that they charge arms and legs for their products. Then, when they finally start selling arms, you still complain! Leaaave Apple alone!!:)
Google has a history of discretion in regards to their auto-car.
They have a history of discretion in regards to testing their auto-car. This is an important distinction, I'm not making it to be contrarian.
What makes you think the final product (if there ever is a final product) will be some great ostentatious thing?
I think the first issue is one of liability. It is more than likely that if these vehicles are allowed to share the road with human drivers they will have to be clearly marked as running on 'auto-pilot'. This wouldn't be a Google decision, it'd be up to whatever regulations are put into place onces the states start figuring out how they're going to license these things.
The second issue is simply marketing. We'll talk about that next.
Also examine trends of hybrid cars. The only one that's somewhat noticeable is the Prius, and that's mostly because it's an entirely new car with a new body-style.
This is just plain not true. When the first hybrid came out they not only gave the body an unusual design, they also buried the rear tires half-way just to grab eyeballs. Once the word 'hybrid' got out there, they dialed it back a bit, mainly because cars still have to look attractive. That distinctive covering of the tire has become an eyesore now. Heh. Another thing to think about is that Google will *not* be manufacturing this car. They'll partner up with an auto manufacturer and... guess what? Toyota or Chevy or whoever ends up inking the deal, they're going to want to make sure people see their cars on the road just like Honda did with the Insight.
Three's no way an auto company is going to build the dream car everybody's been waiting 50+ years for and not go nuts marketing the hell out of it. That's why I'm having so much difficulty understanding where you're coming from on that.
And yet we still keep him, and his relatives, in a cage.
For scientific reasons.
Oh, wait, it's fashionable to prattle on about how humans stink. I see why you left that off, never mind. To atone for this, in the next thread about SETI I'll make a joke about how aliens won't respond back to us because there's no intelligent life here. I should get modded up because we all read that Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, right?
At the point when the article was written 18 months ago, they'd already clocked all those miles, in secret, lending credence to the notion that they enjoy anonymity in this affair. There was slightly more fanfare for the current announcement, simply because they're getting a much bigger sandbox to play in. One does not post a million dollar insurance bond for the entire state of Nevada without someone taking notice.
You're (still...) talking about them being discreet while testing the vehicle. Which, really, should be filed under D for Duh. It is completely immaterial. In fact, now you can expect everybody to see that it's self-driving car because Google's running around tooting its own horn about it.
So... I ask again: Why do you think the final product wouldn't boldly announce that it's running on auto-pilot? Bear in mind, it won't necessarily be Google's decision.
Slashdot Mirror
If complaining directly to them doesn't work, you might try griping about them on Twitter. My mother-in-law was able to get Comcast to make good on a bad deal that way.
Would those radio location beacons be the sort of thing that airports would find useful?
You know what? You're right! All this excessive Apple coverage sucks!! The only thing that'd relieve the problem is if we had more stories about them, the more useless the better.
Yes, you're exactly right. It happens at my office, too. We have so many hotspots nearby that I have gotten a stability boost by telling it not to auto-change channels.
Any suggestions on how I might be doing it wrong would be appreciated. This is not my area of expertise.
I've heard before that the higher the range of frequency, the harder it is for signals to penetrate things like walls. If we keep advancing along these lines, could this potentially ease our troubles with wifi-over-saturation because we won't be picking up our neighbors' signals?
Reading about apple products on Slashdot is like reading about living under a communist regime, editing the 'truth' for an agenda.
Mods? Can I get the word 'Insightful' next to my post?
FTFY.
Apple, cowards that they are, just avoided the question altogether.
Gee, I wonder if that's because a million Haterade Addicts out there are trying to turn any dumb thing they can into a news story.
Didn't he marry Marion Cleaver?
Was out of town for a few days... missed you :)
I hope you had a good trip. (no sarcasm or anything like that intended.)
In the meantime, I'll use the data currently available (testing data), which, while imperfect, at least exists.
The thing is, though, your rationale cancels itself out. They're not market testing, they're "Don't kill humans!" testing.
I was kinda thinking the same thing, but came to a different conclusion. As I mentioned before, the most dangerous thing about the cars will be the looky-loos trying to see it. To that end, I would expect an insurance company to require a modicum of tact and discretion.
I could see somebody standing up and making that argument, it's not a bad one, but I don't think it'd play out for two reasons: 1. In the US, we LOVE having people to blame . We're very lawsuit happy and Google has deep pockets. People will want to be able to blame Google if there's a crash. 2. People want to know to stay clear of these cars. I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if these cars had to have a third different-colored tail light to indicate it's on auto-pilot.
Have you seen the "new driver" or "elderly driver" logo's that Japanese drivers are required to display? While noticeable, they're hardly gaudy. I would expect something similar for any required markings on an Auto-Pilot car. Also, see the old "HOV APPROVED" stickers that used to adorn hybrids here in the states. Clearly visible, not ridiculously so.
I think I'm misreading your post. You're supporting my point.
I didn't see the half-covered tires as all that crazy.
They were. The word 'futuristic' floated around a lot when describing that car. I also recall a couple of times I read about how that was a lesson in branding.
All of my assumptions are based on facts...
None of those facts are anything like: "Google's last car was a sleeper hit. It took word of mouth to gain in popularity because nobody could spot the thing amongst a sea of Prius's and Civics!" It's like bragging about your snake oil being made from 'all natural ingredients'.
Really, I just don't see how a hybrid with covered tires translates into an unsafe auto-pilot car.
You were the one that went down the path that a highly recognizable self-driving car would mean an accident-prone one. I didn't really get it either, that's why I asked you to elaborate.
Just think: When Apple announces it and it matches what you said, then you'll be right!
How often do you really need gigabit?
I frequently pull a gigabyte of data over the network to my laptop to open a scene. In my case, it wouldn't be a 'pro' laptop without an ethernet port.
YMMV.
There are persistent rumors that Apple is going to 'airify' their MacBook Pro line. Following that line of thought, it's assumed that they'll take it to the extreme and not include an ethernet port.
Personally, I think it makes sense that some would think that. But I think they'll realize they'll have trouble calling it a 'pro' laptop without an ethernet port. That said, it is something I'd be double checking for once it's announced.
No harm done.
What kind of shitty company do you work at that doesn't have WiFi?
Well, the wifi where I work now is over-saturated and doesn't work so well. But that's immaterial because my company doesn't let you hit our network from the wifi, you can only go out to the internet on t.
Oh, and lots of places don't actually have wifi, it has nothing to do with the shittiness of the company.
I hate anything made by Apple even though I'm going to be excited when the first clone comes out.
First you complain that they charge arms and legs :)
for their products. Then, when they finally start selling arms, you still complain! Leaaave Apple alone!!
Listening != data mining
You're right. Listening is worse.
Until you get infected, then suddenly they should have done something about it.
Google has a history of discretion in regards to their auto-car.
They have a history of discretion in regards to testing their auto-car. This is an important distinction, I'm not making it to be contrarian.
What makes you think the final product (if there ever is a final product) will be some great ostentatious thing?
I think the first issue is one of liability. It is more than likely that if these vehicles are allowed to share the road with human drivers they will have to be clearly marked as running on 'auto-pilot'. This wouldn't be a Google decision, it'd be up to whatever regulations are put into place onces the states start figuring out how they're going to license these things.
The second issue is simply marketing. We'll talk about that next.
Also examine trends of hybrid cars. The only one that's somewhat noticeable is the Prius, and that's mostly because it's an entirely new car with a new body-style.
This is just plain not true. When the first hybrid came out they not only gave the body an unusual design, they also buried the rear tires half-way just to grab eyeballs. Once the word 'hybrid' got out there, they dialed it back a bit, mainly because cars still have to look attractive. That distinctive covering of the tire has become an eyesore now. Heh. Another thing to think about is that Google will *not* be manufacturing this car. They'll partner up with an auto manufacturer and... guess what? Toyota or Chevy or whoever ends up inking the deal, they're going to want to make sure people see their cars on the road just like Honda did with the Insight.
Three's no way an auto company is going to build the dream car everybody's been waiting 50+ years for and not go nuts marketing the hell out of it. That's why I'm having so much difficulty understanding where you're coming from on that.
Apple releases an update that disables outdated and vulnerable third party software...
FTFY.
The reality distortion field is strong with this one.
Yep, you're standing on the wrong side of it.
And yet we still keep him, and his relatives, in a cage.
For scientific reasons.
Oh, wait, it's fashionable to prattle on about how humans stink. I see why you left that off, never mind. To atone for this, in the next thread about SETI I'll make a joke about how aliens won't respond back to us because there's no intelligent life here. I should get modded up because we all read that Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, right?
Today's secret word is 'cache'.
Err... but only if there's more than one...?
Eh, it's not that specific. If it requires a friends list, we hate it. The rationale comes later.
At the point when the article was written 18 months ago, they'd already clocked all those miles, in secret, lending credence to the notion that they enjoy anonymity in this affair. There was slightly more fanfare for the current announcement, simply because they're getting a much bigger sandbox to play in. One does not post a million dollar insurance bond for the entire state of Nevada without someone taking notice.
You're (still...) talking about them being discreet while testing the vehicle. Which, really, should be filed under D for Duh. It is completely immaterial. In fact, now you can expect everybody to see that it's self-driving car because Google's running around tooting its own horn about it.
So... I ask again: Why do you think the final product wouldn't boldly announce that it's running on auto-pilot? Bear in mind, it won't necessarily be Google's decision.
YEah! Television's stupid! I'm smart cos I don't own one! Oh, and bring back FireFly!