"without ability to turn off, mute, or skip on infotainment"
And next someone will figure out how to cram a paperclip into the speaker and "disable" it. Bonus points if they then complain its not working and ask for a refund.
And someone will make a killing selling black clingy plastic screen covers for $10 at the airport.
Unfortunately, you can still see everyone else's screen (which was hilarious the last flight I was on - someone on the aisle was watching a movie with nudity, with kids on the other side of the aisle a few rows back watching intently...)
1) Never EVER give your TV direct internet access 2) If you want a “smart tv”, use an external box which serves content to the TV via HDMI 3) See #1
These devices aren’t supported more than two or three years anyway - if you give them internet access, you’re providing a nice easy way for bad guys into your home.
Think of a smart tv as just another badly designed IoT device.
I'm wondering how long it will be before manufacturers start installing non-removable SIM cards in there to shove ads/steal data via a non-turn-off-able cell connection.
Not to mention it would have been trivial to bring it to the cities' attention by exploiting it without causing problems.
Where I live, they test these things every Wed at exactly noon, IF the weather's clear. So just run your exploit 5 minutes before a normal test in clear weather. Most people wouldn't notice, but the city certainly would.
It makes me glad I'm not the engineer/developer responsible for building that subsystem.
How much do you want to be the engineers actually said, "putting those engines on this air frame will cause safety issues. We shouldn't. We need to re-design the air frame to handle them." And then an exec said, "Doing it right is too expensive/time consuming, do it this way or you're fired!"
If Telsa can put a big enough battery in the truck to last the full distance...
It would be silly to put a massive battery in the tractor. They won't need nearly as much juice as when they have a trailer, and there's room on (most) semi trailers for several enormous battery modules in front of the trailer wheels. Bonus: From that location, they'd be easy to forklift in and out in a few minutes, and the trailers tend to sit around somewhere they can charge a lot more than the trucks do.
...men who could do more than 40 push-ups had a 96-percent lower risk of heart disease than those who could do no more than 10...
Duh? Anyone that can't do 10 pushups is pretty fscking out of shape, so that's like saying, "people that can do 40 pushups have 96% less risk than people that are already about to have a heart attack."
Even though the story about the boots is fictional, there's a way out of that trap. You have to realize that you only need to buy a single pair of the good leather boots, to solve that particular problem for the rest of your life. After you get your first pair, you slowly save up the $50 for the next pair over the next 10 years. And then with the net money saved, you can get out of other traps.
The reason why people fail is because they cannot hold savings long enough to buy the expensive but durable goods. Instead, they'll spend their savings on something they don't need (as much).
The problem with this is that it only really works for non-essentials. Most people MUST have housing, transportation, clothes, etc. Someone that can afford to put 20% down on a house can get a better interest rate, not pay PMI, and build equity, vs. someone who has to rent or pay more in interest to buy the same house (potentially tens of thousands over the life of the mortgage). Someone that can afford a car payment AND to still save for the next car can put themselves in a better position for the next purchase, but you can't if you can just barely pay for transportation to get to your job.
1. Buy lots of expensive tickets 2. Buy this "insurance" on the player least likely to miss the game 3. Make sure said player has an "accident" 4. Sell tickets second-hand 5. Profit!
And back when being wealthy meant that you could stay inside instead of work out in a field all day every day, being pasty white was considered attractive.
At the moment, though, having the spare time and money to get a nice tan is (somewhat) of an indicator of wealth, so it's "attractive." Except to guys like me that know what the girl will look like after 20 years of tanning vs. the ones that don't have a tan now. The beautifully tanned 20 year olds of today are the looks-50-but-are-only-30s of tomorrow.
Additionally the USPS is required by federal law to provide service to everyone in the United States. The can't withhold service except for specific reasons, such as dog attacks. UPS/Fedex/etc have no requirements to provide service to any location. If you're too far off the beaten track they can ignore you or charge as much as they want. It's not a level playing field.
I would totally support regulations to level the playing field. The USPS yearly revenue is usually between $60-70 billion. Simply require any delivery company competing with the USPS (accounting for any related subsidiaries/contractors to avoid stupid games) making 80% or more of the USPS's yearly revenue to deliver to any address that the USPS does, with rates defined by package size/weight instead of delivery location.
(UPS and FedEx are currently around $75B and $65B respectively, so they have no excuses for not being able to provide similar service/pricing to USPS, other than wanting more profit)
I bet if they added headphone jacks again, the new phones would sell like hotcakes. Who wants to upgrade when there's a huge decrease in functionality?
How much you want to bet someone at Apple a few years ago said "hey, in couple of years, the smartphone market will be saturated, and sales will slow. Let's remove the headphone jack NOW, so people will upgrade to phones without one, then we can add it back in when sales slow down to get people to toss their otherwise perfectly good phones"?
People fighting on the street is an emergency? Maybe you don't understand that the non-emergency numbers should ALWAYS be used for non-emergencies.
You should use 911 for any in-progress situation. It's the dispatchers' job to prioritize, not yours. The non-emergency number should be use for calling in reports after the fact (i.e. "someone stole my bike sometime last night"), or nuisances like noise complaints (even this one is debatable). This almost verbatim from our PD's public information officer.
"Just a fight" is always one hit away from someone being seriously injured or killed.
> that he has set himself up for a huge lawsuit by whomever took the package.
And that is precisely why America is FUCKED.
Victim: I got tired of MY packages being stolen so I booby trapped them Thief: I'm suing for emotional distress. Victim: WTF!?
The fact that this thing had four phones in it, plus other custom electronics, etc. means it was probably worth several thousand dollars, likely making it's theft a felony. Most of these package thieves seem to be normal people being assholes, so I'm guessing if they went to a lawyer, and said "I want to sue," the lawyer would probably explain a few things to them.
Even if he did get sued, given the number of subscribers he has, and how much people hate the package thieves, it'd probably take about 4 hours to crowd-fund more legal defense money than he'd ever need.
Why do people find it acceptable that valuable packages are just left on the doorstep ?
Because paying someone to make repeated attempts at delivery costs money, and the shipping companies charge that back to the customer for requiring a signature.
It's "acceptable" because for most items, the collective cost of the signature service is probably more than then collective cost of shipping replacements.
If it's costing you an extra $2 each for 10k packages a day, you need to lose $20k to theft before it makes sense to switch to requiring signatures for everything. It would probably take a 5% theft rate for that to happen (more, if you cherry-pick the expensive stuff and just require a signature for that), and I doubt it's that high.
You forgot another problem with mass EV adoption: The large percentage of the population that lives in apartments, and thus has no practical way to charge an EV.
This is a nine-passenger aircraft. No matter how cheap it is, it can't replace a common turboprop commuter aircraft like the Q400, which seats 80-90 people.
Which I doubt it was ever intended for. In fact, given the airport resource contention you mentioned, I'd be surprised if they were ever intended to operate out of major airports.
What they'd be good for is things like Lubbock, TX to Waco, TX or Odessa to College Station, where there isn't much demand, and currently no commercial flights at all.
You can get vroom vroom from speakers. Seriously, EVs will probably be required to make some noise as a safety feature for pedestrians and cyclists at some point. Especially at low speed, parking lots, crosswalks, etc.
The problem isn't quiet cars, it's inattentive pedestrians. I have a car with a sort of loudish sport exhaust, but at low speeds (ie. driving through my neighborhood full of playing kids at 15MPH in 2nd gear), it still makes so little noise that I end up sneaking up on people not paying attention. Most ICE cars are even quieter at those speeds.
... for example because some can't charge at their homes?
This seems to be a huge issue that just isn't being addressed. Around here, tons of new high-density apartments are going up, and NONE of them, as far as I know, are set up to support even a mediocre percentage of residents with electric cars. I see Teslas all over the place here (Dallas area), but you just can't run one if you don't also own a single-family home. Back when I was in an apartment, I had a garage, but there wasn't even a 110v outlet in there, much less something to charge a car on.
I also wonder how many apartment complexes have electric service that could even handle 400 people showing up between 5 and 6p and plugging in their cars. Even if they did, it would probably be one of those setups where the chargers are owned by the complex, and you have to pay them extortionate rates to use them instead of it coming from your own electric bill.
The gaming industry is getting a bad as the movie industry. Each own company want to launch their own client. With shitty interfaces.
It's nowhere near as bad... e.g. Steam (and I assume this new Epic store) doesn't try to charge you a monthly fee for the privilege of shopping there, so there's no problem with having several different channels to buy things.
...someone will ALWAYS figure out how to take money from you. This is the biggest non-problem on the planet.
Unless doing so is more expensive than what they're taking from you. Not having cash means less of a target for robbery, not having to pay someone to pick it up or take it to the bank, less time figuring change, self-checkouts without unreliable cash-handling machinery, etc.
If you only have $200/day in cash transactions, it probably costs you more to deal with cash than you're going to make in profit. Especially for low-margin businesses like groceries.
Slashdot Mirror
"without ability to turn off, mute, or skip on infotainment"
And next someone will figure out how to cram a paperclip into the speaker and "disable" it. Bonus points if they then complain its not working and ask for a refund.
And someone will make a killing selling black clingy plastic screen covers for $10 at the airport.
Unfortunately, you can still see everyone else's screen (which was hilarious the last flight I was on - someone on the aisle was watching a movie with nudity, with kids on the other side of the aisle a few rows back watching intently...)
1) Never EVER give your TV direct internet access
2) If you want a “smart tv”, use an external box which serves content to the TV via HDMI
3) See #1
These devices aren’t supported more than two or three years anyway - if you give them internet access, you’re providing a nice easy way for bad guys into your home.
Think of a smart tv as just another badly designed IoT device.
I'm wondering how long it will be before manufacturers start installing non-removable SIM cards in there to shove ads/steal data via a non-turn-off-able cell connection.
J4Al4&/rO1.P9DeErxL ) Yes, that's the kind of passwords you should use,
That's a terrible password for a person to remember. A good one would be:
"Get your f'ing grubby paws offa my computer, hacker!"
Not to mention it would have been trivial to bring it to the cities' attention by exploiting it without causing problems.
Where I live, they test these things every Wed at exactly noon, IF the weather's clear. So just run your exploit 5 minutes before a normal test in clear weather. Most people wouldn't notice, but the city certainly would.
It makes me glad I'm not the engineer/developer responsible for building that subsystem.
How much do you want to be the engineers actually said, "putting those engines on this air frame will cause safety issues. We shouldn't. We need to re-design the air frame to handle them." And then an exec said, "Doing it right is too expensive/time consuming, do it this way or you're fired!"
....is temporarily a BETTER place for it!!
Going to be a lot of December babies this year...
If Telsa can put a big enough battery in the truck to last the full distance...
It would be silly to put a massive battery in the tractor. They won't need nearly as much juice as when they have a trailer, and there's room on (most) semi trailers for several enormous battery modules in front of the trailer wheels. Bonus: From that location, they'd be easy to forklift in and out in a few minutes, and the trailers tend to sit around somewhere they can charge a lot more than the trucks do.
...men who could do more than 40 push-ups had a 96-percent lower risk of heart disease than those who could do no more than 10...
Duh? Anyone that can't do 10 pushups is pretty fscking out of shape, so that's like saying, "people that can do 40 pushups have 96% less risk than people that are already about to have a heart attack."
Even though the story about the boots is fictional, there's a way out of that trap. You have to realize that you only need to buy a single pair of the good leather boots, to solve that particular problem for the rest of your life. After you get your first pair, you slowly save up the $50 for the next pair over the next 10 years. And then with the net money saved, you can get out of other traps.
The reason why people fail is because they cannot hold savings long enough to buy the expensive but durable goods. Instead, they'll spend their savings on something they don't need (as much).
The problem with this is that it only really works for non-essentials. Most people MUST have housing, transportation, clothes, etc.
Someone that can afford to put 20% down on a house can get a better interest rate, not pay PMI, and build equity, vs. someone who has to rent or pay more in interest to buy the same house (potentially tens of thousands over the life of the mortgage).
Someone that can afford a car payment AND to still save for the next car can put themselves in a better position for the next purchase, but you can't if you can just barely pay for transportation to get to your job.
1. Buy lots of expensive tickets
2. Buy this "insurance" on the player least likely to miss the game
3. Make sure said player has an "accident"
4. Sell tickets second-hand
5. Profit!
Taste is a very subjective thing. What you like, I may not, what you think tastes unique may be totally blah for me.
But AI might be good for finding things that taste good to *most* people, which is probably all a for-profit company cares about.
"We want skilled employees!"
later...
*lays off skilled older employees*
And back when being wealthy meant that you could stay inside instead of work out in a field all day every day, being pasty white was considered attractive.
At the moment, though, having the spare time and money to get a nice tan is (somewhat) of an indicator of wealth, so it's "attractive." Except to guys like me that know what the girl will look like after 20 years of tanning vs. the ones that don't have a tan now. The beautifully tanned 20 year olds of today are the looks-50-but-are-only-30s of tomorrow.
Additionally the USPS is required by federal law to provide service to everyone in the United States. The can't withhold service except for specific reasons, such as dog attacks. UPS/Fedex/etc have no requirements to provide service to any location. If you're too far off the beaten track they can ignore you or charge as much as they want. It's not a level playing field.
I would totally support regulations to level the playing field. The USPS yearly revenue is usually between $60-70 billion. Simply require any delivery company competing with the USPS (accounting for any related subsidiaries/contractors to avoid stupid games) making 80% or more of the USPS's yearly revenue to deliver to any address that the USPS does, with rates defined by package size/weight instead of delivery location.
(UPS and FedEx are currently around $75B and $65B respectively, so they have no excuses for not being able to provide similar service/pricing to USPS, other than wanting more profit)
I bet if they added headphone jacks again, the new phones would sell like hotcakes. Who wants to upgrade when there's a huge decrease in functionality?
How much you want to bet someone at Apple a few years ago said "hey, in couple of years, the smartphone market will be saturated, and sales will slow. Let's remove the headphone jack NOW, so people will upgrade to phones without one, then we can add it back in when sales slow down to get people to toss their otherwise perfectly good phones"?
People fighting on the street is an emergency? Maybe you don't understand that the non-emergency numbers should ALWAYS be used for non-emergencies.
You should use 911 for any in-progress situation. It's the dispatchers' job to prioritize, not yours. The non-emergency number should be use for calling in reports after the fact (i.e. "someone stole my bike sometime last night"), or nuisances like noise complaints (even this one is debatable). This almost verbatim from our PD's public information officer.
"Just a fight" is always one hit away from someone being seriously injured or killed.
> that he has set himself up for a huge lawsuit by whomever took the package.
And that is precisely why America is FUCKED.
Victim: I got tired of MY packages being stolen so I booby trapped them
Thief: I'm suing for emotional distress.
Victim: WTF!?
The fact that this thing had four phones in it, plus other custom electronics, etc. means it was probably worth several thousand dollars, likely making it's theft a felony. Most of these package thieves seem to be normal people being assholes, so I'm guessing if they went to a lawyer, and said "I want to sue," the lawyer would probably explain a few things to them.
Even if he did get sued, given the number of subscribers he has, and how much people hate the package thieves, it'd probably take about 4 hours to crowd-fund more legal defense money than he'd ever need.
Why do people find it acceptable that valuable packages are just left on the doorstep ?
Because paying someone to make repeated attempts at delivery costs money, and the shipping companies charge that back to the customer for requiring a signature.
It's "acceptable" because for most items, the collective cost of the signature service is probably more than then collective cost of shipping replacements.
If it's costing you an extra $2 each for 10k packages a day, you need to lose $20k to theft before it makes sense to switch to requiring signatures for everything. It would probably take a 5% theft rate for that to happen (more, if you cherry-pick the expensive stuff and just require a signature for that), and I doubt it's that high.
Not to mention finding which ones might be engaging in hotel-based extramarital activities that make them ripe for blackmail.
You forgot another problem with mass EV adoption: The large percentage of the population that lives in apartments, and thus has no practical way to charge an EV.
This is a nine-passenger aircraft. No matter how cheap it is, it can't replace a common turboprop commuter aircraft like the Q400, which seats 80-90 people.
Which I doubt it was ever intended for. In fact, given the airport resource contention you mentioned, I'd be surprised if they were ever intended to operate out of major airports.
What they'd be good for is things like Lubbock, TX to Waco, TX or Odessa to College Station, where there isn't much demand, and currently no commercial flights at all.
You can get vroom vroom from speakers. Seriously, EVs will probably be required to make some noise as a safety feature for pedestrians and cyclists at some point. Especially at low speed, parking lots, crosswalks, etc.
The problem isn't quiet cars, it's inattentive pedestrians. I have a car with a sort of loudish sport exhaust, but at low speeds (ie. driving through my neighborhood full of playing kids at 15MPH in 2nd gear), it still makes so little noise that I end up sneaking up on people not paying attention. Most ICE cars are even quieter at those speeds.
... for example because some can't charge at their homes?
This seems to be a huge issue that just isn't being addressed. Around here, tons of new high-density apartments are going up, and NONE of them, as far as I know, are set up to support even a mediocre percentage of residents with electric cars. I see Teslas all over the place here (Dallas area), but you just can't run one if you don't also own a single-family home. Back when I was in an apartment, I had a garage, but there wasn't even a 110v outlet in there, much less something to charge a car on.
I also wonder how many apartment complexes have electric service that could even handle 400 people showing up between 5 and 6p and plugging in their cars. Even if they did, it would probably be one of those setups where the chargers are owned by the complex, and you have to pay them extortionate rates to use them instead of it coming from your own electric bill.
This better not become a thing.
The gaming industry is getting a bad as the movie industry. Each own company want to launch their own client. With shitty interfaces.
It's nowhere near as bad... e.g. Steam (and I assume this new Epic store) doesn't try to charge you a monthly fee for the privilege of shopping there, so there's no problem with having several different channels to buy things.
...someone will ALWAYS figure out how to take money from you. This is the biggest non-problem on the planet.
Unless doing so is more expensive than what they're taking from you. Not having cash means less of a target for robbery, not having to pay someone to pick it up or take it to the bank, less time figuring change, self-checkouts without unreliable cash-handling machinery, etc.
If you only have $200/day in cash transactions, it probably costs you more to deal with cash than you're going to make in profit. Especially for low-margin businesses like groceries.